HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8693 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Heard Sri Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. Present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 711 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 DP Act, Police Station Lalganj, District Mirzapur with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail. 3. It is contended 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. He further submits that no offence is made out against the applicant as the applicant has not been named in the chargesheet. It is submitted that the applicant has been summoned during trial under Section 319 CrPC. It is also submitted that the name of the applicant does not find mention in the first dying declaration of the deceased, however, in the second dying declaration her name has been found. It is also submitted that co-accused persons, namely, Abhishek Pandey, Jayant Pandey and Madhuri who are facing trial, are already on bail. It is submitted that no investigation remains to be conducted and the applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and she would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shri Prakash Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Prashansa Pandey .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and submitted that name of the applicant has been found mentioned in the second dying declaration of the deceased. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. The name of the applicant has not been found mentioned in the chargesheet, however, she has been summoned during trial under Section 319 CrPC by the trial Court. The co-accused persons, namely, Abhishek Pandey, Jayant Pandey and Madhuri who are facing trial, are already on bail. The applicant is said to be the sister-in-law of the deceased. 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 applicant 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 applicant- Prashansa Pandey involved in the aforesaid case crime, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on her 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 applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that she would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned; NABAIL No. 8693 of 2025 2 (ii) 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/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicant would cooperate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail. (iv) The applicant 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 applicant herein. October 29, 2025 Abhishek NABAIL No. 8693 of 2025 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad