Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:40635 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1651 of 2025 Applicant :- Kailash Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhananjay Shukla,Sujan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dinesh Kumar Maurya,G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicant for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.218 of 2024, under Sections 80 & 85 B.N.S, 2023 read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Manikpur, District Chitrakoot. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased. Allegation in the FIR is that the applicant and co-accused were demanding dowry and when demand was not fulfilled, they tortured the deceased (informant's daughter) and poisoned her. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. General allegation of demand of dowry is levelled against all the accused persons. Applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. Deceased was admitted by in-laws in the hospital. Deceased herself consumed poison. Allegation is not supported by any evidence. It is submitted that the applicant is apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation. 4. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the applicant is father- in-law of the deceased and he is named in the FIR. There is allegation that the applicant and other co-accused persons were poisoned the informant's daughter on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. Applicant is named in the FIR. The applicant is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be rejected. 5. The object of Section 482 B.N.S. is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any other person operating the things directly or from behind the curtains. 6. It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this Court cannot be put in a straitjacket formula but such discretionary power either grant or refusal of anticipatory bail has to be exercised carefully in appropriate cases with circumspection on the basis of the available material after evaluating the facts of the particular case and considering other relevant factors (nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of the applicant to flee from justice, apprehension of tempering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of grant of anticipatory bail in investigation or society etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society. 7. Considered the arguments of both the parties. From the record, it is apparent that marriage of the deceased with applicant's son held two years before and thereafter she died in unnatural circumstances. Applicant is named in the FIR. No interference is warranted. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and considering the submissions advanced, the nature and gravity of the accusation, I find no good ground for anticipatory bail to the applicant in the aforesaid case. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant- Kailash Yadav, involved in aforesaid case crime is, hereby, rejected. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 SKD Digitally signed by :- SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad