Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86891 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1221 of 2024 Applicant :- Reeta Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Chowdhury Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ajeet Kumar Srivastava,G.A. Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J. 1. List revised. None present for the applicant in support of the present anticipatory bail application. However, Shri Ajeet Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant is present. 2. Heard learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. 3. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 90 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sindhaura, District Varanasi, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on anticipatory bail. 4. Since, learned counsel for the applicant is not present even in the revised list, this Court itself has gone through the submissions made in the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application and the pleadings available on record. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is 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 him. It has further been submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents. 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 proceeding of trial and would obey all conditions of bail. 6. Learned counsel for the informant submits that earlier this Court vide order dated 26.02.2024 had granted interim anticipatory bail to the applicant till the next date of listing or till submission of charge sheet. Now, charge sheet has been filed in the present crime on 11.02.2024. 7. Learned A.G.A. for the State has also submitted that in the present crime charge sheet has been filed, therefore, no interference is required. 8. 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. 9. 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 and considering that charge sheet has been filed, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, no case for anticipatory bail is made out. 10. The anticipatory bail application is rejected. 11. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 Mustaqeem. Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad