HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 651 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Shri Anand Shanker Asthana, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Jayant Singh Tomar, learned A.G.A.-I for the State. 2. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of the following order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 06.06.2025: "Heard learned counsel the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned AGA, submitting that the present application is not maintainable as it has been filed directly before this Court. Learned counsel for the applicant, placing reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ankit Bharti v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 1949, submits that since the applicant is a resident of District Varanasi and the FIR has been registered in District Lucknow, the present case falls within the ambit of exceptional circumstances. In view of the above submission, the objection raised by the learned AGA is hereby overruled. The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime/FIR No. 295/2023, registered under Sections 313, 354, 377, 498A, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Gazipur, District Lucknow. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR has been lodged after an Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anand Shanker Asthana, Mukesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Himanshu Talreja .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another .....Opposite Party(s) inordinate delay of over one year. The applicant is the husband of the daughter of opposite party no. 2. There is no allegation against the applicant under Section 313 IPC. Only general allegations have been levelled. It is also submitted that a matrimonial dispute is already pending between the parties. An application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed by the husband of the victim. No specific allegation has been levelled against the applicant. The contents of the FIR and the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are inconsistent. Interim protection was granted vide order dated 22.09.2023 in Writ Petition No. 7223 of 2023 filed by the applicant and her mother. It is contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated. It is also submitted that co-accused Mamta Devi (In FIR Mamta Talreja) against whom allegation under Section 313 IPC was made has been granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 05.06.2025 passed in CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 643 of 2025. He seeks parity with the order of the said co-accused. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has no prior criminal record, is not a previous convict, and undertakes to cooperate in the investigation. Learned AGA submits that investigation is pending, however, does not dispute the fact that already a matrimonial dispute is pending between the parties. Issue notice to respondent No. 2. Steps be taken within a week. Learned Addl. Government Advocate is allowed 15 days' time to file counter affidavit. List on 08.07.2025. Upon due consideration to the the pending matrimonial dispute; the interim protection granted by the Division Bench of this Court; the applicant's lack of criminal antecedents; interim anticipatory bail order of co-accused Mamta Devi; his undertaking to cooperate in the investigation and without delving into the merits of the case, this Court, in light of the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, finds it appropriate to grant interim anticipatory bail to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned. The applicant shall report to the investigating officer within twenty days from today. ABAIL No. 651 of 2025 2 She shall cooperate in the investigation and she will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection." 3. The office has reported on 07.07.2025 that the notice issued to the opposite party No.2 stands served personally but nobody on behalf of opposite party No.2 is present to oppose the anticipatory bail application. 4. The State has filed a counter affidavit opposing the anticipatory bail application annexing therewith copies of the materials collected during the investigation and a copy of the charge sheet. 5. The learned A.G.A. does not allege violation of any condition of interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. 6. Keeping in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is nothing which may persuade this Court from taking a different view than the one taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. The interim order dated 06.06.2025 is made absolute in terms of the aforesaid order. September 16, 2025 S. Shivhare ABAIL No. 651 of 2025 3 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench