Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86942 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 445 of 2024 Applicant :- Leela Siromadi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Alkesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Nitin Saxena,G.A. Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for first informant, 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. 308 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 376, 377, 315, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on anticipatory bail. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and she has an apprehension that she may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. It has further been submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents and that no coercive process has been issued against the applicant so far. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to cooperate during investigation and trial and she would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. 4. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for first informant have opposed the application for anticipatory bail. 5. 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, 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. 6. 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 applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, no case for anticipatory bail is made out. 7. The anticipatory bail application is rejected. 8. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 9. However, it is open for the applicant to move regular bail before the concerned Court below. In case, such an application for bail is moved before the concerned Court below, then it is expected that the concerned Court below shall consider and decide the same keeping in mind the necessary guidelines for grant of bail as laid down in the matter of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021), without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the statutory provisions governing consideration in grant of bail. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 Mustaqeem. Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad