Nadira Khanam and another v. State of U.P. and another), copy of the order is annexed as annexure

2. Heard Sri Raghuvansh Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 BNSS has been filed by the applicant- Kishwar Alias Guddo, seeking anticipatory bail in Case No. 22822/2023 (State Vs. Kishwar and others), Case Crime No. 234 of 2021, under Sections 147, 306, 506, 34, Police Station Parikshitgarh, District Meerut.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant has no concern with the present matter. No specific role has been assigned to her. No offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is made out. It is argued that the prosecution case is that the marriage of the daughter of first informant was denied by co-accused Shadab who is the brother of the applicant with whom the deceased was willing to marry after which she committed suicide. It is argued that the same is not instigation. It is submitted that there is no abetment and instigation of any kind by the applicants which has any nexus with the death of the deceased, the applicants have no mens-rea at all, there is no overt act whatsoever of the applicant, which resulted in the death of the deceased, the applicant has no motive at all to commit the aforesaid offence.

5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that during the pendency of investigation, co-accused Nadara Khanam and the applicant were granted anticipatory bail till submission of Police Report, if any, under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent court vide order dated 23.11.2021 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 17124 of 2021 (Nadira Khanam and another Vs. State of U.P. and another), copy of the order is annexed as annexure 1 to the affidavit. It is submitted that the investigation has concluded and charge sheet in the matter has been submitted against the applicant and other co- accused persons on which the court concerned has taken cognizance vide order dated 02.02.2023, copy of the entire order sheet has been placed before the Court which is annexure S.A.1 to the second supplementary dated 27.012025. It is submitted that during investigation the applicant cooperated in the same and did not tamper with evidence and there is nothing on record to show that the applicant violated any of the conditions of the said order. It is submitted that the applicant is a lady and she is entitled to the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 39 of the affidavit.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not dispute the arguments aforesaid.

7. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 23.11.2021 by this Court till submission of Police Report, if any, under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent court in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 17124 of 2021 (Nadira Khanam and another Vs. State of U.P. and another), the same reads as under: "Heard Sri Raghuvansh Chandra, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri S.B. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. This anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants- Nadara Khanam and Kishwar @ Guddo, seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 234 of 2021, under Sections 147, 306, 506, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Parikshitgarh, District Meerut. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the applicants are lady. It is argued that the applicants have no concern with the present matter. They have been falsely implicated in the present case. No specific role has been assigned to them. No offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is made out. It is argued that the prosecution case is that the marriage of the daughter of first informant was denied by co-accused Shadab who is the brother of the applicants with whom the deceased was willing to marry after which she committed suicide. It is argued that the same is not instigation. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that there is no abetment and instigation of any kind by the applicants which has any nexus with the death of the deceased, the applicants have no mens-rea at all, there is no overt act whatsoever of the applicants, which resulted in the death of the deceased, the applicants have no motive at all to commit the aforesaid offence. It is argued that co-accused Reshma, has been granted interim protection by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.11.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17744 of 2021 (Reshma vs. State of U.P. and another). The copy of the said order is taken on record. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and argued that the applicants are named in the first information report and there are allegations against them. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that there is no abetment and instigation of any kind by the applicants which has any nexus with the death of the deceased, the applicants have no mens-rea at all, there is no overt act whatsoever of the applicants, which resulted in the death of the deceased, the applicants have no motive at all to commit the aforesaid offence. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering the nature of accusation, the applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case. In the event of arrest of the applicants- Nadara Khanam and Kishwar @ Guddo, involved in Case Crime No. 234 of 2021, under Sections 147, 306, 506, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Parikshitgarh, District Meerut, they shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:- (i) the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police office as and when required; (ii) the applicants 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 office; (iii) the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants. The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicants. The applicants are directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order. The anticipatory bail application is disposed of."

8. The investigation has concluded and charge sheet has been submitted on which the court concerned has taken cognizance and summoned the applicant. There is nothing on record to show that the applicant did not cooperate in the investigation or tampered with evidence. Learned counsel for the State also could not point out any such circumstance of non cooperation in the investigation or tampering with evidence.

9. In view of the same, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the nature of accusation, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

10. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Kishwar Alias Guddo, involved in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till period of trial on her furnishing a fresh 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 appear before the court concerned within a period of two weeks from today and file certified copy of this order for its compliance. (ii) the applicant shall make herself available on each and every date fixed in the matter by the court concerned. (iii) 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. (iv) 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 concerned court.

11. In case, the applicant does not co-operate in the proceedings of the trial, this order shall stand automatically recalled/vacated and the applicant shall be taken into custody, forthwith.

12. Further, in default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

13. The court concerned shall not be prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

14. The present anticipatory bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 17.2.2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Raghuvansh Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 BNSS has been filed by the applicant- Kishwar Alias Guddo, seeking anticipatory bail in Case No. 22822/2023 (State Vs. Kishwar and others), Case Crime No. 234 of 2021, under Sections 147, 306, 506, 34, Police Station Parikshitgarh, District Meerut.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant has no concern with the present matter. No specific role has been assigned to her. No offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is made out. It is argued that the prosecution case is that the marriage of the daughter of first informant was denied by co-accused Shadab who is the brother of the applicant with whom the deceased was willing to marry after which she committed suicide. It is argued that the same is not instigation. It is submitted that there is no abetment and instigation of any kind by the applicants which has any nexus with the death of the deceased, the applicants have no mens-rea at all, there is no overt act whatsoever of the applicant, which resulted in the death of the deceased, the applicant has no motive at all to commit the aforesaid offence.

5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that during the pendency of investigation, co-accused Nadara Khanam and the applicant were granted anticipatory bail till submission of Police Report, if any, under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent court vide order dated 23.11.2021 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 17124 of 2021 (Nadira Khanam and another Vs. State of U.P. and another), copy of the order is annexed as annexure 1 to the affidavit. It is submitted that the investigation has concluded and charge sheet in the matter has been submitted against the applicant and other co- accused persons on which the court concerned has taken cognizance vide order dated 02.02.2023, copy of the entire order sheet has been placed before the Court which is annexure S.A.1 to the second supplementary dated 27.012025. It is submitted that during investigation the applicant cooperated in the same and did not tamper with evidence and there is nothing on record to show that the applicant violated any of the conditions of the said order. It is submitted that the applicant is a lady and she is entitled to the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 39 of the affidavit.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not dispute the arguments aforesaid.

7. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 23.11.2021 by this Court till submission of Police Report, if any, under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent court in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 17124 of 2021 (Nadira Khanam and another Vs. State of U.P. and another), the same reads as under: "Heard Sri Raghuvansh Chandra, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri S.B. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. This anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants- Nadara Khanam and Kishwar @ Guddo, seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 234 of 2021, under Sections 147, 306, 506, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Parikshitgarh, District Meerut. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the applicants are lady. It is argued that the applicants have no concern with the present matter. They have been falsely implicated in the present case. No specific role has been assigned to them. No offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is made out. It is argued that the prosecution case is that the marriage of the daughter of first informant was denied by co-accused Shadab who is the brother of the applicants with whom the deceased was willing to marry after which she committed suicide. It is argued that the same is not instigation. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that there is no abetment and instigation of any kind by the applicants which has any nexus with the death of the deceased, the applicants have no mens-rea at all, there is no overt act whatsoever of the applicants, which resulted in the death of the deceased, the applicants have no motive at all to commit the aforesaid offence. It is argued that co-accused Reshma, has been granted interim protection by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.11.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17744 of 2021 (Reshma vs. State of U.P. and another). The copy of the said order is taken on record. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and argued that the applicants are named in the first information report and there are allegations against them. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that there is no abetment and instigation of any kind by the applicants which has any nexus with the death of the deceased, the applicants have no mens-rea at all, there is no overt act whatsoever of the applicants, which resulted in the death of the deceased, the applicants have no motive at all to commit the aforesaid offence. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering the nature of accusation, the applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case. In the event of arrest of the applicants- Nadara Khanam and Kishwar @ Guddo, involved in Case Crime No. 234 of 2021, under Sections 147, 306, 506, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Parikshitgarh, District Meerut, they shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:- (i) the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police office as and when required; (ii) the applicants 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 office; (iii) the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants. The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicants. The applicants are directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order. The anticipatory bail application is disposed of."

8. The investigation has concluded and charge sheet has been submitted on which the court concerned has taken cognizance and summoned the applicant. There is nothing on record to show that the applicant did not cooperate in the investigation or tampered with evidence. Learned counsel for the State also could not point out any such circumstance of non cooperation in the investigation or tampering with evidence.

9. In view of the same, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the nature of accusation, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

10. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Kishwar Alias Guddo, involved in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till period of trial on her furnishing a fresh 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 appear before the court concerned within a period of two weeks from today and file certified copy of this order for its compliance. (ii) the applicant shall make herself available on each and every date fixed in the matter by the court concerned. (iii) 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. (iv) 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 concerned court.

11. In case, the applicant does not co-operate in the proceedings of the trial, this order shall stand automatically recalled/vacated and the applicant shall be taken into custody, forthwith.

12. Further, in default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

13. The court concerned shall not be prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

14. The present anticipatory bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 17.2.2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad