Allahabad High Court

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Ajay Kumar seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0197 of 2025, under Sections 85, 115(2), 105 of BNS and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Jhunsi, District Prayagraj.

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

3. After 22 years of the marriage of the deceased with Sanjay Kumar, an F.I.R. was lodged by the deceased herself that she was being ill treated and beaten by her in-laws i.e. Shanti Devi (mother-in-law), Raja Ram (father-in-law), Sanjay Kumar (husband) and Ajay Kumar (devar), present applicant on account of demand of additional dowry. On 19.9.2025 at 11.00 p.m. all the accused persons beaten her bitterly. F.I.R. was lodged on

22.5.2025 and after one week of lodging the F.I.R. deceased died.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. The investigation of the case is going-on and charge-sheet has not been filed. It is also submitted that the applicant alongwith his wife reside outside the city of 2 NABAIL No. 9191 of 2025 Prayagraj in connection with their employment. He happens to be dever of the deceased. The prosecution story is neither probable nor natural as during the married life of 22 years the matter was never complained of by the deceased / informant. It is also not probable that after 22 years of the marriage she was being demanded additional dowry by her in-laws to which she was bitterly beaten by them. No injury report is on record pertaining to the injuries of the victim, as mentioned in the F.I.R. In the post mortem report although five injuries have been discovered by the doctor but all the injuries are simple and cause of death was found as shock due to ante mortem septicemia. Applicant has no criminal history to his credit. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he 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. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and it is submitted that it was the patience of the deceased that for a long period of 22 years of marriage she was tolerating the harassment, cruelty and physical assault made by her in-laws. In the post mortem report some injuries have been mentioned by the doctor. It is also submitted that there was no reason to falsely implicate the present applicant in this matter by the deceased.

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

7. It appears that the applicant alongwith his wife was residing outside the city Prayagraj for the sake of their employment. Investigation in the matter is going on and the applicant is cooperating with the I.O.

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, 3 NABAIL No. 9191 of 2025 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. 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, tenure of the marriage of the deceased with her husband Sanjay Kumar 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, he shall be released on anticipatory bail 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 4 NABAIL No. 9191 of 2025 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.

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 - Ajay Kumar seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0197 of 2025, under Sections 85, 115(2), 105 of BNS and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Jhunsi, District Prayagraj.

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

3. After 22 years of the marriage of the deceased with Sanjay Kumar, an F.I.R. was lodged by the deceased herself that she was being ill treated and beaten by her in-laws i.e. Shanti Devi (mother-in-law), Raja Ram (father-in-law), Sanjay Kumar (husband) and Ajay Kumar (devar), present applicant on account of demand of additional dowry. On 19.9.2025 at 11.00 p.m. all the accused persons beaten her bitterly. F.I.R. was lodged on

22.5.2025 and after one week of lodging the F.I.R. deceased died.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. The investigation of the case is going-on and charge-sheet has not been filed. It is also submitted that the applicant alongwith his wife reside outside the city of 2 NABAIL No. 9191 of 2025 Prayagraj in connection with their employment. He happens to be dever of the deceased. The prosecution story is neither probable nor natural as during the married life of 22 years the matter was never complained of by the deceased / informant. It is also not probable that after 22 years of the marriage she was being demanded additional dowry by her in-laws to which she was bitterly beaten by them. No injury report is on record pertaining to the injuries of the victim, as mentioned in the F.I.R. In the post mortem report although five injuries have been discovered by the doctor but all the injuries are simple and cause of death was found as shock due to ante mortem septicemia. Applicant has no criminal history to his credit. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he 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. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and it is submitted that it was the patience of the deceased that for a long period of 22 years of marriage she was tolerating the harassment, cruelty and physical assault made by her in-laws. In the post mortem report some injuries have been mentioned by the doctor. It is also submitted that there was no reason to falsely implicate the present applicant in this matter by the deceased.

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

7. It appears that the applicant alongwith his wife was residing outside the city Prayagraj for the sake of their employment. Investigation in the matter is going on and the applicant is cooperating with the I.O.

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, 3 NABAIL No. 9191 of 2025 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. 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, tenure of the marriage of the deceased with her husband Sanjay Kumar 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, he shall be released on anticipatory bail 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 4 NABAIL No. 9191 of 2025 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.

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.)