Allahabad High Court

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Smt. Hema @ Prem Lata seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.43 of 2025, under Sections 87, 69, 352, 351(3), 115(2) of BNS, P.S.Sakrauli, District Etah.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. It is alleged in the FIR of this case that the named accused persons Shivam and his relative Smt. Hema, present applicant, came to the house of the informant and by way of adducement they took the victim of this case with them where forced marriage was performed by them with the victim and main accused Shivam made physical relations with her many times and also took her to the Court and prepared some papers relating to the marriage. Subsequently when the informant made a search for her daughter she was returned by the accused persons. Her jewels were also kept by the accused persons and they threatened her for life. F.I.R. was lodged and investigation is going on.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and she has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is also submitted that no fraud has been played by the present applicant and main accused Shivam with the 2 NABAIL No. 8682 of 2025 victim. They performed marriage in a Mandir and a write- up was also prepared in the form of marriage agreement on the notorial stamp paper. Applicant is a lady and no offence under Section 69 of BNS is made out against her. It is also submitted that after six months of the incident complaints were made by the victim of this case. Medical report does not corroborate the prosecution version. There are material contradictions in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS. The investigation of the case is going-on and charge-sheet has not been filed. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the present applicant was fully involved in commission of the alleged crime alongwith the main accused Shivam.

6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

7. It appears that investigation in the matter is going on and the applicant is cooperating with the I.O. of the case. It also appears that the marriage agreement was executed on a notorial stamp paper wherein nowhere it was mentioned by the victim that she has been cheated or threatened by the present applicant. Victim is a major lady.

8. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood influencing course investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the 3 NABAIL No. 8682 of 2025 facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

9. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

10. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of police report under Section 193 of BNSS before the Competent Court.

11. The application is allowed accordingly.

12. In the event of arrest of the applicant, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 4 NABAIL No. 8682 of 2025 any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office. (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if she has passport, the same shall be deposited by her before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

13. In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. November 17, 2025 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Smt. Hema @ Prem Lata seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.43 of 2025, under Sections 87, 69, 352, 351(3), 115(2) of BNS, P.S.Sakrauli, District Etah.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. It is alleged in the FIR of this case that the named accused persons Shivam and his relative Smt. Hema, present applicant, came to the house of the informant and by way of adducement they took the victim of this case with them where forced marriage was performed by them with the victim and main accused Shivam made physical relations with her many times and also took her to the Court and prepared some papers relating to the marriage. Subsequently when the informant made a search for her daughter she was returned by the accused persons. Her jewels were also kept by the accused persons and they threatened her for life. F.I.R. was lodged and investigation is going on.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and she has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is also submitted that no fraud has been played by the present applicant and main accused Shivam with the 2 NABAIL No. 8682 of 2025 victim. They performed marriage in a Mandir and a write- up was also prepared in the form of marriage agreement on the notorial stamp paper. Applicant is a lady and no offence under Section 69 of BNS is made out against her. It is also submitted that after six months of the incident complaints were made by the victim of this case. Medical report does not corroborate the prosecution version. There are material contradictions in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS. The investigation of the case is going-on and charge-sheet has not been filed. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the present applicant was fully involved in commission of the alleged crime alongwith the main accused Shivam.

6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

7. It appears that investigation in the matter is going on and the applicant is cooperating with the I.O. of the case. It also appears that the marriage agreement was executed on a notorial stamp paper wherein nowhere it was mentioned by the victim that she has been cheated or threatened by the present applicant. Victim is a major lady.

8. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood influencing course investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the 3 NABAIL No. 8682 of 2025 facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

9. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

10. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of police report under Section 193 of BNSS before the Competent Court.

11. The application is allowed accordingly.

12. In the event of arrest of the applicant, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 4 NABAIL No. 8682 of 2025 any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office. (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if she has passport, the same shall be deposited by her before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

13. In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. November 17, 2025 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)