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 his arrest in Case Crime No.373 of 2025 under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar, the applicant - Anita Dwivedi @ Anita Dubey has filed this application seeking anticipatory bail in the aforesaid crime number.

3. The death of the deceased Radha occurred in her matrimonial house and an F.I.R. was lodged containing the facts that the marriage between Mukesh Dubey, the husband of the deceased Radha was solemnized 15 years back and the death of the deceased was caused by her husband hatching conspiracy with other family members as he was having some illicit relations with one another lady. The deceased was subjected to cruelty and torture for the last three years.

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. She has been falsely implicated in this case. She had actually no role in the commission of the crime nor she had any motive in the commission of murder of the deceased. She is the jethani of the deceased who is living separately. Due to some strained relations, the present applicant was not on speaking terms with the family of husband of the deceased. The applicant is completely ignorant about the strained relations between Mukesh, the husband and wife Radha, 2 NABAIL No. 9548 of 2025 the deceased and she had absolutely no role to play in the married life of both. It is further submitted that in the postmortem report, two injuries have been found upon the body of the deceased and the cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved and sent for examination to F.S.L., report of which is still awaited. It is also submitted that there is no cogent evidence against the present applicant, although in her statement given to the I.O., the minor daughter of the deceased has disclosed some facts regarding strained relations between her mother and father but however the applicant before this Court is the jethani of the deceased and she had to play no role in the alleged death of the deceased. It is further submitted that the applicant is cooperating with the investigation. It is further submitted that no custodial interrogation is required in this matter from the applicant. She has no criminal antecedents to her credit 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. However, he could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that no charge-sheet has been submitted in this matter against the present applicant and investigation is still going on.

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 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 3 NABAIL No. 9548 of 2025 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, she 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 her 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 herself 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 she has passport, the same shall be deposited by her 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. November 19, 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 his arrest in Case Crime No.373 of 2025 under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar, the applicant - Anita Dwivedi @ Anita Dubey has filed this application seeking anticipatory bail in the aforesaid crime number.

3. The death of the deceased Radha occurred in her matrimonial house and an F.I.R. was lodged containing the facts that the marriage between Mukesh Dubey, the husband of the deceased Radha was solemnized 15 years back and the death of the deceased was caused by her husband hatching conspiracy with other family members as he was having some illicit relations with one another lady. The deceased was subjected to cruelty and torture for the last three years.

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. She has been falsely implicated in this case. She had actually no role in the commission of the crime nor she had any motive in the commission of murder of the deceased. She is the jethani of the deceased who is living separately. Due to some strained relations, the present applicant was not on speaking terms with the family of husband of the deceased. The applicant is completely ignorant about the strained relations between Mukesh, the husband and wife Radha, 2 NABAIL No. 9548 of 2025 the deceased and she had absolutely no role to play in the married life of both. It is further submitted that in the postmortem report, two injuries have been found upon the body of the deceased and the cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved and sent for examination to F.S.L., report of which is still awaited. It is also submitted that there is no cogent evidence against the present applicant, although in her statement given to the I.O., the minor daughter of the deceased has disclosed some facts regarding strained relations between her mother and father but however the applicant before this Court is the jethani of the deceased and she had to play no role in the alleged death of the deceased. It is further submitted that the applicant is cooperating with the investigation. It is further submitted that no custodial interrogation is required in this matter from the applicant. She has no criminal antecedents to her credit 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. However, he could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that no charge-sheet has been submitted in this matter against the present applicant and investigation is still going on.

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 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 3 NABAIL No. 9548 of 2025 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, she 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 her 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 herself 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 she has passport, the same shall be deposited by her 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. November 19, 2025 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)