Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86093 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 3217 of 2025 Applicant :- Parmila Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mamta Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Deepak Pandey,G.A.,Lavlesh Kumar Sharma,Zaya Firdaus Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J. 1. List revised. None appears for the informant, although the names of Deepak Pandey, Lavlesh Kumar Sharma, Zaya Firdaus counsel for the informant have been shown in the cause list. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 631 of 2024, under Sections 80, 85 B.N.S., and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Rasra, District Ballia with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is mother- in-law of the deceased. The applicant never demanded dowry or did she torture the deceased. In fact, the applicant never interfered in the domestic life of the deceased and her husband. The applicant is bereaved by the death of his daughter-in-law and prays for peace of the departed soul. However, for the purpose of the anticipatory bail application, it is submitted that the deceased was a temperamental lady who was prone to extreme reactions even on trivial issues. On the fateful day apparently after minor disagreement with her husband, the deceased has herself administered poison. She thus submits that the 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 her. It has further been submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents and that according to her informant, no coercive process has been issued against the applicant so far. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the 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. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and argued that the cause of death is poison and due to self- fulfilment of the dowry, the deceased has been administered poison and that the cause of death is poison. 6. 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. 7. 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 merit of the case, no case for anticipatory bail is made out. 8. The anticipatory bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 S.Ali Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad