Pradeep Kumar State of U.P. and Another v. Counsel for

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Pradeep Kumar in Case Crime No.0251 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 328 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Dibiyapur, District - Auraiya.

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

3. Prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that the deceased was married with the brother of the applicant (devar) and her in-laws were demanding additional dowry from the deceased whereas sufficient dowry was given to them at the time of marriage but her in-laws were not satisfied with this and she was scolded many times. The in-laws of the deceased surreptitiously started administering slow poisonous chemical to the deceased and as a result of which her body caught some serious ailments. Her in-laws never brought the deceased to any doctor or hospital. Her husband was having some affair with one other lady. All the in-laws together caused the death of Shashi Prabha, the wife of Kuldeep. After her death, F.I.R. was lodged by the brother of the deceased and after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted into the matter.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has no concern with the present matter. He has been falsely implicated in this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Applicant's case is squarely covered under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It is further 2 NABAIL No. 8943 of 2025 submitted that the applicant, who is the devar of the deceased, never made any demand of additional dowry nor any cruelty, torture or harassment was made by him upon the deceased. It is further submitted that the deceased committed suicide as she was totally fed up with her ailments developed during pregnancy. She has a son of about 2 years and also one child of 8 months and in the said frustration, she committed suicide. It is further submitted that as per postmortem report of deceased, the cause of death of the deceased was found as septicemia due to chronic lung / heard disease. Viscera was also preserved and sent to F.S.L. and in the viscera report, zinc phosphide poison was found. It is also submitted that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the brother of the applicant 4 years 6 months before the incident. The doctor has opined that she was suffering from some chronic diseases. It is also submitted that her in-laws are not responsible from any angle that she was subjected to cruelty and torture by her in-laws due to demand of additional dowry. The applicant was found innocent by the I.O. during the investigation. It is further submitted that even if it is presumed that zinc phosphide was administered to the lady, some features / symptoms arises in the body of lady but so far as the present case is concerned, in the F.S.L. Report, no contents to this effect was found in it. It is further submitted that during course of investigation, the applicant has been cooperative. It is a case of matrimonial dispute to which the applicant has no concern. It is further submitted that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest in this matter. On these grounds, the applicant, who happens to be the devar of the deceased, has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail in this matter.

5. The aforesaid submissions made by applicant's side have been vehemently opposed by the learned A.G.A. and it has been submitted that the applicant is the main culprit of the incident. During investigation, ample evidence was found against him by the I.O. Now after submission of the charge-sheet in this matter, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

7. The Court takes notice of this fact that the grounds taken in the application for grant of anticipatory bail are sufficient and convincing. The present applicant is not the husband of deceased but is only devar. No specific role has been assigned to him in this matter. In the postmortem 3 NABAIL No. 8943 of 2025 report of the deceased, it was found that the lady died due to chronic lung / heart diseases and the immediate cause of death was septicemia.

8. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial. It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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 of his influencing the course of 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 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. Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till end of the trial in the matter.

10. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

11. In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till end of the trial on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :- (i) The applicant shall make himself available before the court concerned on the date fixed in the matter; (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to 4 NABAIL No. 8943 of 2025 dissuade him / her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

12. In case of default of any of the conditions, same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. November 4, 2025 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Pradeep Kumar in Case Crime No.0251 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 328 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Dibiyapur, District - Auraiya.

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

3. Prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that the deceased was married with the brother of the applicant (devar) and her in-laws were demanding additional dowry from the deceased whereas sufficient dowry was given to them at the time of marriage but her in-laws were not satisfied with this and she was scolded many times. The in-laws of the deceased surreptitiously started administering slow poisonous chemical to the deceased and as a result of which her body caught some serious ailments. Her in-laws never brought the deceased to any doctor or hospital. Her husband was having some affair with one other lady. All the in-laws together caused the death of Shashi Prabha, the wife of Kuldeep. After her death, F.I.R. was lodged by the brother of the deceased and after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted into the matter.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has no concern with the present matter. He has been falsely implicated in this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Applicant's case is squarely covered under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It is further 2 NABAIL No. 8943 of 2025 submitted that the applicant, who is the devar of the deceased, never made any demand of additional dowry nor any cruelty, torture or harassment was made by him upon the deceased. It is further submitted that the deceased committed suicide as she was totally fed up with her ailments developed during pregnancy. She has a son of about 2 years and also one child of 8 months and in the said frustration, she committed suicide. It is further submitted that as per postmortem report of deceased, the cause of death of the deceased was found as septicemia due to chronic lung / heard disease. Viscera was also preserved and sent to F.S.L. and in the viscera report, zinc phosphide poison was found. It is also submitted that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the brother of the applicant 4 years 6 months before the incident. The doctor has opined that she was suffering from some chronic diseases. It is also submitted that her in-laws are not responsible from any angle that she was subjected to cruelty and torture by her in-laws due to demand of additional dowry. The applicant was found innocent by the I.O. during the investigation. It is further submitted that even if it is presumed that zinc phosphide was administered to the lady, some features / symptoms arises in the body of lady but so far as the present case is concerned, in the F.S.L. Report, no contents to this effect was found in it. It is further submitted that during course of investigation, the applicant has been cooperative. It is a case of matrimonial dispute to which the applicant has no concern. It is further submitted that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest in this matter. On these grounds, the applicant, who happens to be the devar of the deceased, has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail in this matter.

5. The aforesaid submissions made by applicant's side have been vehemently opposed by the learned A.G.A. and it has been submitted that the applicant is the main culprit of the incident. During investigation, ample evidence was found against him by the I.O. Now after submission of the charge-sheet in this matter, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

7. The Court takes notice of this fact that the grounds taken in the application for grant of anticipatory bail are sufficient and convincing. The present applicant is not the husband of deceased but is only devar. No specific role has been assigned to him in this matter. In the postmortem 3 NABAIL No. 8943 of 2025 report of the deceased, it was found that the lady died due to chronic lung / heart diseases and the immediate cause of death was septicemia.

8. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial. It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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 of his influencing the course of 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 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. Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till end of the trial in the matter.

10. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

11. In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till end of the trial on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :- (i) The applicant shall make himself available before the court concerned on the date fixed in the matter; (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to 4 NABAIL No. 8943 of 2025 dissuade him / her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

12. In case of default of any of the conditions, same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. November 4, 2025 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)