Allahabad High Court

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

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

2. Apprehending her arrest in Case Crime No.167 of 2025 under Sections 85, 352, 351(2), 351(3), 80(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Maharajpur, District Kanpur Nagar, the applicant - Ram Devi Alias Narayan Devi has filed this application seeking anticipatory bail in the aforesaid crime number.

3. Dowry death of daughter of the informant was caused in her matrimonial house on 18.4.2025 and in the postmortem report the cause of death of the deceased was found asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. F.I.R. was lodged and investigation is going on against the present accused applicant.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and she has apprehension of her arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. She has been falsely implicated into this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on into the matter. It is also submitted that only on account of being the mother-in-law of the deceased, she has been falsely roped in this matter. F.I.R. in this case has been lodged belatedly to which no explanation has been offered by the prosecution. It is also submitted that the information of suicide committed by the deceased has been given by Raju Singh @ Vijay Singh, the husband of the deceased, himself to the police station and she was taken to the hospital by her in-laws and the matter was reported to the police. It is also submitted that the accused persons never demand any type of dowry from the deceased and no harassment was caused 2 NABAIL No. 8966 of 2025 to her by any of the accused persons. It is wrong to say that the in-laws of the deceased were worried and angry with the fact that the deceased was pregnant and they were trying to terminate her pregnancy. It is also submitted that as per record of the case, the deceased was already having two small kids aged about 2 years and 8 months and the deceased herself was worried and puzzled with her pregnancy for the third time which persuaded her to commit suicide.It is also submitted that no F.I.R. was lodged till performing of inquest and even the postmortem of the deceased, whereas the informant side was well aware about the death of the deceased and as a matter of fact, at the time of inquest, the husband of the deceased was himself present over there.It is further submitted that the alleged demand of Rs.1 lakh and motorcycle as dowry is totally false. Applicant is a lady having no criminal antecedents to her credit. She has been cooperative to the I.O. so far and as such, she is entitled for anticipatory bail.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and it has been submitted that the witnesses from the informant side corroborated the prosecution version in their statement recorded before the I.O. The death of the deceased was caused within seven years of her marriage in otherwise than normal circumstances. It is also submitted that since after getting the information of the death of the deceased, the informant side immediately rushed to her matrimonial house and was engaged in the inquest proceedings and other subsequent proceedings and information was already given to the police by the husband of the deceased, it caused delay in lodging of the F.I.R.

6. 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 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.

7. 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 3 NABAIL No. 8966 of 2025 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.

8. 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 the filing of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. / 193 (3) B.N.S.S. before the competent Court.

9. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

10. In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the filing of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. / 193 (3) B.N.S.S. before the competent Court on his 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 himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (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 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 he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

11. 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. December 12, 2025 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

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

2. Apprehending her arrest in Case Crime No.167 of 2025 under Sections 85, 352, 351(2), 351(3), 80(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Maharajpur, District Kanpur Nagar, the applicant - Ram Devi Alias Narayan Devi has filed this application seeking anticipatory bail in the aforesaid crime number.

3. Dowry death of daughter of the informant was caused in her matrimonial house on 18.4.2025 and in the postmortem report the cause of death of the deceased was found asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. F.I.R. was lodged and investigation is going on against the present accused applicant.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and she has apprehension of her arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. She has been falsely implicated into this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on into the matter. It is also submitted that only on account of being the mother-in-law of the deceased, she has been falsely roped in this matter. F.I.R. in this case has been lodged belatedly to which no explanation has been offered by the prosecution. It is also submitted that the information of suicide committed by the deceased has been given by Raju Singh @ Vijay Singh, the husband of the deceased, himself to the police station and she was taken to the hospital by her in-laws and the matter was reported to the police. It is also submitted that the accused persons never demand any type of dowry from the deceased and no harassment was caused 2 NABAIL No. 8966 of 2025 to her by any of the accused persons. It is wrong to say that the in-laws of the deceased were worried and angry with the fact that the deceased was pregnant and they were trying to terminate her pregnancy. It is also submitted that as per record of the case, the deceased was already having two small kids aged about 2 years and 8 months and the deceased herself was worried and puzzled with her pregnancy for the third time which persuaded her to commit suicide.It is also submitted that no F.I.R. was lodged till performing of inquest and even the postmortem of the deceased, whereas the informant side was well aware about the death of the deceased and as a matter of fact, at the time of inquest, the husband of the deceased was himself present over there.It is further submitted that the alleged demand of Rs.1 lakh and motorcycle as dowry is totally false. Applicant is a lady having no criminal antecedents to her credit. She has been cooperative to the I.O. so far and as such, she is entitled for anticipatory bail.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and it has been submitted that the witnesses from the informant side corroborated the prosecution version in their statement recorded before the I.O. The death of the deceased was caused within seven years of her marriage in otherwise than normal circumstances. It is also submitted that since after getting the information of the death of the deceased, the informant side immediately rushed to her matrimonial house and was engaged in the inquest proceedings and other subsequent proceedings and information was already given to the police by the husband of the deceased, it caused delay in lodging of the F.I.R.

6. 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 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.

7. 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 3 NABAIL No. 8966 of 2025 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.

8. 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 the filing of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. / 193 (3) B.N.S.S. before the competent Court.

9. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

10. In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the filing of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. / 193 (3) B.N.S.S. before the competent Court on his 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 himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (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 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 he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

11. 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. December 12, 2025 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)