Allahabad High Court

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Sunil Kumar Mittal seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.355 of 2025, under Section 108 of BNS, P.S. Sikandra, District Agra.

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

3. The lady victim committed suicide by taking some poisonous substance after about 13 years of her marriage on account of her husband having some extra marital affairs with any other lady. She was subjected to cruelty and harassment for want of additional dowry and she was living in state of distress and frustration. Her husband gradually became a drunkard person and ultimately she found no way to save herself and her children from the torture made by her in-laws and committed suicide. F.I.R. was lodged and investigation started, which is still going on.

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. It is also submitted that no cruelty or harassment of any kind was caused by any of the in-laws of the deceased and the allegation of the prosecution is totally false. There is no evidence at all on record that the present 2 NABAIL No. 9197 of 2025 applicant was having any extra marital affair. It is further submitted that after having knowledge of taking some poisonous substance by the deceased, the present applicant being her husband took her to the hospital immediately and tried to save the life of his wife. It is also submitted that essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are completely missing in this case. The applicant never abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. There is no suicide note prepared by the deceased on record. 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, 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. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the deceased was having two minor children and there was no reason at all for her to commit suicide. It is also submitted that the extra marital affair of the husband in the life time of his own wife cannot be tolerated by any married lady and it also comes within the purview of abetment to commit suicide. Offence is very serious.

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

7. Investigation in the matter is going on and the applicant is cooperating with the I.O. At this stage there is no cogent evidence for the applicant having some extra marital affair with any other lady. It also appears that the applicant took the deceased hospital immediately to save her life.

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 3 NABAIL No. 9197 of 2025 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 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 following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall make himself available for 4 NABAIL No. 9197 of 2025 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 Sunil Kumar Mittal seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.355 of 2025, under Section 108 of BNS, P.S. Sikandra, District Agra.

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

3. The lady victim committed suicide by taking some poisonous substance after about 13 years of her marriage on account of her husband having some extra marital affairs with any other lady. She was subjected to cruelty and harassment for want of additional dowry and she was living in state of distress and frustration. Her husband gradually became a drunkard person and ultimately she found no way to save herself and her children from the torture made by her in-laws and committed suicide. F.I.R. was lodged and investigation started, which is still going on.

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. It is also submitted that no cruelty or harassment of any kind was caused by any of the in-laws of the deceased and the allegation of the prosecution is totally false. There is no evidence at all on record that the present 2 NABAIL No. 9197 of 2025 applicant was having any extra marital affair. It is further submitted that after having knowledge of taking some poisonous substance by the deceased, the present applicant being her husband took her to the hospital immediately and tried to save the life of his wife. It is also submitted that essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are completely missing in this case. The applicant never abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. There is no suicide note prepared by the deceased on record. 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, 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. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the deceased was having two minor children and there was no reason at all for her to commit suicide. It is also submitted that the extra marital affair of the husband in the life time of his own wife cannot be tolerated by any married lady and it also comes within the purview of abetment to commit suicide. Offence is very serious.

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

7. Investigation in the matter is going on and the applicant is cooperating with the I.O. At this stage there is no cogent evidence for the applicant having some extra marital affair with any other lady. It also appears that the applicant took the deceased hospital immediately to save her life.

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 3 NABAIL No. 9197 of 2025 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 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 following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall make himself available for 4 NABAIL No. 9197 of 2025 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.)