Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:130991 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12162 of 2024 Applicant :- Madeena Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Aishwarya Pratap Singh,Anuj Mishra,Awadhesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant-Madeena in connection with Case Crime No.30 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 313, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Sambhal. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that earlier vide order dated 25.5.2023 in Cr. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 5542 of 2023 the accused applicant was granted anticipatory bail by this Court till the filing of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court. Now after investigation charge sheet has been filed in the matter under Sections 498-A, 323, 313, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. It is further submitted that the applicant has cooperated during that period and has not misused the said liberty. It is further submitted that no custodial interrogation is required. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that the case under Section 174-A I.P.C. has also been registered against the accused applicant. 5. It reveals from perusal of the record that the accused applicant has not been cooperative with the I.O of the case and remained absconding and that is why the attachment proceedings were initiated against her by the Court and the charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant as absconder accused, hence, there is no doubt that the present accused applicant misused the anticipatory bail granted to her, whereas it was incumbent upon her to make herself available for interrogation by the police as and when required. 6. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial. 7. It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial. 8. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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, llikelihood 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. 8. Hence, considering the settled principles 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, also considering the gross misuse of the relief granted in favour of the accused applicant, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant. 10. The anticipatory bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 5.8.2025 Fhd Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad