HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8078 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri O.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 0552 of 2025, under Sections 85, 115(2), 74, 351(2) of B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali City, District Bijnor with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have an apprehension that they may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that no offence is made out against the applicants as some matrimonial dispute has been given colour of outraging the modesty of the first informant. It is submitted that allegations against the applicant no. 1 are false and frivolous. It is submitted that co-accused Anshu Sharma who is mother- in-law has already been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Court below. It is further submitted that the applicants are having no criminal history. It is further submitted that the victim (first informant) in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS has levelled general allegations of outraging the modesty against the applicant no. 1. It is also submitted that applicants undertake to cooperate during trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Praveen Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rakesh Kumar Sharma Alias Rakesh Sharma And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) It is lastly submitted that in case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and they will cooperate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. As per first information report, some matrimonial dispute regarding demand of dowry by the applicants and co-accused has been alleged. It is also alleged that the applicant no. 1 used to outrage the modesty of the first informant. Chargesheet has already been submitted in the present case and the applicants are having no criminal history. 7. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, the Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration. 8. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. 9. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 10. In the event of arrest of the applicants- Rakesh Kumar Sharma @ Rakesh Sharma and Arpit Vashisth involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail on their 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 applicants shall not tamper with evidence and that they would NABAIL No. 8078 of 2025 2 appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned; (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/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicants would cooperate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail. (iv) The applicants shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned. 11. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants. October 7, 2025 Abhishek NABAIL No. 8078 of 2025 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad