Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:72526 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 2483 of 2025 Applicant :- Chandra Prakash And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- G.S. Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.33 of 2025 under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S., and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mauranipur, District Jhansi, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have an apprehension that they may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. It has further been submitted that no coercive process has been issued against the applicants so far. It was also submitted that applicants undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. 4. Learned A.G.A.has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and argued that the applicant no.1 is the husband of the deceased whereas, the applicant no.2 is the father-in-law and applicant no.3 is the mother-in-law of the deceased. He further submits that the incident took place within seven years of the marriage and therefore the applicants do not deserve indulgence by this Court. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the averments made in the present application, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the applicants could not point out any good ground for grant of anticipatory bail in respect of the applicant no.1 Chandra Prakash. 6. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application in respect of applicant no.1 Chandra Prakash is dismissed. 7. However, it is open for the applicant no.1 to move regular bail before the concerned Court below. 8. So far as the applicant no.2 and 3 namely Pankhi @ Ghanshyam and Smt. Rama Devi, the applicant nos. 2 and 3 respectively are concerned, the following order is being passed:- 9. 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. 10. 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 nos. 2 and 3 and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. 11. So far as the applicant nos. 2 and 3 namely Pankhi @ Ghanshyam and Smt. Rama Devi are concerned, the anticipatory bail application is allowed 12. In the event of arrest of the applicants-Pankhi @ Ghanshyam and Smt. Rama Devi involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail till submission of police report on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned the following conditions :- (i) the applicants shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) the applicants 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 applicants would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail. 13. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants. Order Date :- 6.5.2025 S.Ali Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad