Allahabad High Court

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the material available on record.

2. This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant- Vandana Alias Vandana Rani Pundir in connection with Case Crime No. 126 of 2024 under sections 498A, 304B, 316, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.- Charthawal, District- Muzaffarnagar.

3. The dowry death of the daughter of the informant was caused on 24.5.2024 in her matrimonial house. The cause of death in the post mortem report could not be ascertained, hence viscera was preserved for chemical and biological examination but in the viscera report no chemical or poison was found however, aluminum phosphide was found. FIR was lodged and investigation started which culminated into charge sheet.

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. Charge sheet in the matter has been submitted. It is further submitted that the present accused applicant is the married nand of the deceased and she resides in her matrimonial house along with her husband and not in the house of her father. It is further submitted that she has played actually no role in the commission of the crime and since she is a married lade she resides in her matrimonial house, hence she is falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that non-bailable warrant was issued against the present lady applicant on 29.7.2024 and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued on 16.9.2025. It is also submitted that the anticipatory bail application of the accused applicant was rejected on 29.10.2024. It is further submitted that on 6.11.2025 the present anticipatory bail application has been filed before this Court. It is further submitted that orders for issuance of coercive process against the lady applicant were issued during the period when the accused was trying to take shelter of this Court for grant of anticipatory bail and as a matter of fact since she was a married lady and she was residing at her own matrimonial house she had no knowledge of the coercive process whatsoever issued against her and that caused her absence in this case. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history to her credit.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in Asha Dubey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh decided 2 NABAIL No. 9281 of 2025 on 12.11.2024. published in 2024 Law Suit (SC) 1007 wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that if the applicant is claiming his willingness to cooperate with the Court and to the I.O. the custodial interrogation is not required anticipatory bail may be granted. It was further held that proclamation of under Section 82 Cr.P.C. does not impose total embargo on anticipatory bail if the facts justify it. A protection was granted to the accused by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the principle which emerges out from this judgement is that proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. does not bar anticipatory bail where the circumstances demonstrate absence of custodial interrogation. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that the present accused applicant is a chronic defaulter and she was served all the process sent by the Court against her but however learned A.G.A. could not dispute this factual aspect of this matter that the present applicant is the married nand of the deceased and naturally she had been living with her husband and other family members in her own matrimonial house.

7. Although the charge sheet has been submitted in this matter but in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

8. 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.

9. 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, llikelihood 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.

10. In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that : "11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87 Cr.P.C that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of caution.

12. So far as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170Cr.P.C, the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not 3 NABAIL No. 9281 of 2025 being produced in custody are itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."

11. 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 conclusion of trial in the matter.

12. The anticipatory bail application is allowed accordingly.

13. In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, 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 the Court concerned with the following conditions :- i. 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. ii. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. iii. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. iv. The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by her before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicant in accordance with law. November 19, 2025 Fhd (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the material available on record.

2. This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant- Vandana Alias Vandana Rani Pundir in connection with Case Crime No. 126 of 2024 under sections 498A, 304B, 316, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.- Charthawal, District- Muzaffarnagar.

3. The dowry death of the daughter of the informant was caused on 24.5.2024 in her matrimonial house. The cause of death in the post mortem report could not be ascertained, hence viscera was preserved for chemical and biological examination but in the viscera report no chemical or poison was found however, aluminum phosphide was found. FIR was lodged and investigation started which culminated into charge sheet.

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. Charge sheet in the matter has been submitted. It is further submitted that the present accused applicant is the married nand of the deceased and she resides in her matrimonial house along with her husband and not in the house of her father. It is further submitted that she has played actually no role in the commission of the crime and since she is a married lade she resides in her matrimonial house, hence she is falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that non-bailable warrant was issued against the present lady applicant on 29.7.2024 and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued on 16.9.2025. It is also submitted that the anticipatory bail application of the accused applicant was rejected on 29.10.2024. It is further submitted that on 6.11.2025 the present anticipatory bail application has been filed before this Court. It is further submitted that orders for issuance of coercive process against the lady applicant were issued during the period when the accused was trying to take shelter of this Court for grant of anticipatory bail and as a matter of fact since she was a married lady and she was residing at her own matrimonial house she had no knowledge of the coercive process whatsoever issued against her and that caused her absence in this case. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history to her credit.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in Asha Dubey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh decided 2 NABAIL No. 9281 of 2025 on 12.11.2024. published in 2024 Law Suit (SC) 1007 wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that if the applicant is claiming his willingness to cooperate with the Court and to the I.O. the custodial interrogation is not required anticipatory bail may be granted. It was further held that proclamation of under Section 82 Cr.P.C. does not impose total embargo on anticipatory bail if the facts justify it. A protection was granted to the accused by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the principle which emerges out from this judgement is that proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. does not bar anticipatory bail where the circumstances demonstrate absence of custodial interrogation. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that the present accused applicant is a chronic defaulter and she was served all the process sent by the Court against her but however learned A.G.A. could not dispute this factual aspect of this matter that the present applicant is the married nand of the deceased and naturally she had been living with her husband and other family members in her own matrimonial house.

7. Although the charge sheet has been submitted in this matter but in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

8. 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.

9. 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, llikelihood 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.

10. In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that : "11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87 Cr.P.C that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of caution.

12. So far as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170Cr.P.C, the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not 3 NABAIL No. 9281 of 2025 being produced in custody are itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."

11. 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 conclusion of trial in the matter.

12. The anticipatory bail application is allowed accordingly.

13. In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, 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 the Court concerned with the following conditions :- i. 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. ii. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. iii. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. iv. The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by her before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicant in accordance with law. November 19, 2025 Fhd (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)