Ashwani Rathore v. State of U.P. and another). Subsequently, the said anticipatory bail was dismisse

2. Heard Sri Amit Singh, learned counsel for the applicants in all connected matters, Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant in all the matters and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the records.

3. These are three connected anticipatory bail applications and are being decided together by a common order as all the matters are arising out of same case crime number.

4. The anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 7382 of 2024 has been filed by the applicant Ashwani Rathore with the following prayers: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to release the applicant on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 432 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Bisrakh, District Gautam Budh Nagar, during the pendency of trial in Court below, so that justice be done, otherwise the accused applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and substantial injury, which cannot be compensated in any terms."

5. The anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 7209 of 2024 has been filed by the applicant Arpit Rathore with the following prayers: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to release the applicant on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 432 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Bisrakh, District Gautam Budh Nagar, during the pendency of trial in Court below, so that justice be done, otherwise the accused applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and substantial injury, which cannot be compensated in any terms."

6. The anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 7258 of 2024 has been filed by the applicant Anju Rathore with the following prayers: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to release the applicant on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 432 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Bisrakh, District Gautam Budh Nagar, during the pendency of trial in Court below, so that justice be done, otherwise the accused applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and substantial injury, which cannot be compensated in any terms."

7. The FIR of the present matter was lodged on 02.06.2023 by Shaitan Singh Gangwar against the applicants and one other person alleging therein that his elder daughter Trisha Gangwar was married to Abhinav Rathore on 11.07.2021 in which he had given gifts, jewellery, cash and had spent around more than Rs. 12 lakhs in the marriage. The accused persons after 3-4 months of marriage started demanding extra dowry and used to trouble his daughter. Due to their demand they used to threaten her of giving her divorce. They did not permit her going to her maternal house and also in social functions. She told about it on phone at her house. His daughter was intelligent and used to tell him that after some days things would become all right. The accused persons due to their demand of dowry murdered her on 02.06.2023.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant Ashwani Rathore is the father-in-law, Arpit Rathore is the devar and Anju Rathore is the mother-in-law of the deceased. It is submitted that during investigation, the applicant Ashwani Rathore was granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 21.08.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 9388 of 2023 (Ashwani Rathore Vs. State of U.P. and another). Subsequently, the said anticipatory bail was dismissed for non prosecution by this Court vide order dated 30.01.2024, copy of the said orders are annexed as annexure 4 and 5 respectively to the affidavit. It is submitted that the applicant Arpit Rathore was granted interim anticipatory bail by order dated 26.09.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 10048 of 2023 (Arpit Rathore Vs. State of U.P.) but the said petition was subsequently got dismissed as not pressed on 07.11.2023. It is submitted further that the applicant Anju Rathore was also granted interim anticipatory bail during investigation vide order dated 29.08.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 9747 of 2023 (Anju Rathore Vs. State of U.P.). It is submitted that in the present matter, general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicants. It is submitted that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted against the applicants and cognizance have been taken by the court concerned on 09.01.2024. It is submitted that the husband of the deceased namely Abhinav Rathaur has been granted regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by this Court vide order dated 19.12.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 49109 of 2023 (Abhinav Rathaur Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the order is annexed as annexure 11 to the affidavit. It is submitted that looking to the same, the applicants be granted anticipatory bail.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the viscera report of the deceased was found to have contained tranquilizer (diazepam) poison in it. It is submitted that after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted on which the court concerned has taken cognizance and the applicants have not yet appeared before the trial court despite the fat that cognizance taken on 09.01.2024 and it is about one year and five months since then. It is submitted that the applicants are named in the FIR and there are allegations against them. It is further submitted that in so far as co-accused Abhinav Rathore been granted regular bail vide order dated 19.12.2023 under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and as such his case stands on a different footing with the applicants. It is submitted that since the investigation has concluded and charge sheet has been submitted on which the Court concerned has taken cognizance and summoned the applicants and they have not yet appeared before the trial court concerned, the present anticipatory bail application be dismissed.

10. After having heard the counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in the present matter after submission of charge sheet against them. The court concerned has taken cognizance of the charge sheet and summoned them. The applicants are named in the FIR and there are serious allegations against them. The viscera report of the deceased shows that tranquilizer (diazepam) poison found in it. Co-accused Abhinav Rathaur who has been relied upon an order passed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. after his arrest, the case thus stands distinguishable. I do not find it to be a fit case for interference.

11. Accordingly, all the anticipatory bail applications are rejected. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Amit Singh, learned counsel for the applicants in all connected matters, Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant in all the matters and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the records.

3. These are three connected anticipatory bail applications and are being decided together by a common order as all the matters are arising out of same case crime number.

4. The anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 7382 of 2024 has been filed by the applicant Ashwani Rathore with the following prayers: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to release the applicant on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 432 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Bisrakh, District Gautam Budh Nagar, during the pendency of trial in Court below, so that justice be done, otherwise the accused applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and substantial injury, which cannot be compensated in any terms."

5. The anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 7209 of 2024 has been filed by the applicant Arpit Rathore with the following prayers: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to release the applicant on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 432 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Bisrakh, District Gautam Budh Nagar, during the pendency of trial in Court below, so that justice be done, otherwise the accused applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and substantial injury, which cannot be compensated in any terms."

6. The anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 7258 of 2024 has been filed by the applicant Anju Rathore with the following prayers: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to release the applicant on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 432 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Bisrakh, District Gautam Budh Nagar, during the pendency of trial in Court below, so that justice be done, otherwise the accused applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and substantial injury, which cannot be compensated in any terms."

7. The FIR of the present matter was lodged on 02.06.2023 by Shaitan Singh Gangwar against the applicants and one other person alleging therein that his elder daughter Trisha Gangwar was married to Abhinav Rathore on 11.07.2021 in which he had given gifts, jewellery, cash and had spent around more than Rs. 12 lakhs in the marriage. The accused persons after 3-4 months of marriage started demanding extra dowry and used to trouble his daughter. Due to their demand they used to threaten her of giving her divorce. They did not permit her going to her maternal house and also in social functions. She told about it on phone at her house. His daughter was intelligent and used to tell him that after some days things would become all right. The accused persons due to their demand of dowry murdered her on 02.06.2023.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant Ashwani Rathore is the father-in-law, Arpit Rathore is the devar and Anju Rathore is the mother-in-law of the deceased. It is submitted that during investigation, the applicant Ashwani Rathore was granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 21.08.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 9388 of 2023 (Ashwani Rathore Vs. State of U.P. and another). Subsequently, the said anticipatory bail was dismissed for non prosecution by this Court vide order dated 30.01.2024, copy of the said orders are annexed as annexure 4 and 5 respectively to the affidavit. It is submitted that the applicant Arpit Rathore was granted interim anticipatory bail by order dated 26.09.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 10048 of 2023 (Arpit Rathore Vs. State of U.P.) but the said petition was subsequently got dismissed as not pressed on 07.11.2023. It is submitted further that the applicant Anju Rathore was also granted interim anticipatory bail during investigation vide order dated 29.08.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 9747 of 2023 (Anju Rathore Vs. State of U.P.). It is submitted that in the present matter, general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicants. It is submitted that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted against the applicants and cognizance have been taken by the court concerned on 09.01.2024. It is submitted that the husband of the deceased namely Abhinav Rathaur has been granted regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by this Court vide order dated 19.12.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 49109 of 2023 (Abhinav Rathaur Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the order is annexed as annexure 11 to the affidavit. It is submitted that looking to the same, the applicants be granted anticipatory bail.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the viscera report of the deceased was found to have contained tranquilizer (diazepam) poison in it. It is submitted that after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted on which the court concerned has taken cognizance and the applicants have not yet appeared before the trial court despite the fat that cognizance taken on 09.01.2024 and it is about one year and five months since then. It is submitted that the applicants are named in the FIR and there are allegations against them. It is further submitted that in so far as co-accused Abhinav Rathore been granted regular bail vide order dated 19.12.2023 under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and as such his case stands on a different footing with the applicants. It is submitted that since the investigation has concluded and charge sheet has been submitted on which the Court concerned has taken cognizance and summoned the applicants and they have not yet appeared before the trial court concerned, the present anticipatory bail application be dismissed.

10. After having heard the counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in the present matter after submission of charge sheet against them. The court concerned has taken cognizance of the charge sheet and summoned them. The applicants are named in the FIR and there are serious allegations against them. The viscera report of the deceased shows that tranquilizer (diazepam) poison found in it. Co-accused Abhinav Rathaur who has been relied upon an order passed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. after his arrest, the case thus stands distinguishable. I do not find it to be a fit case for interference.

11. Accordingly, all the anticipatory bail applications are rejected. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad