Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85658 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 3372 of 2025 Applicant :- Tabassum And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Tripathi,Shantanu Srivastava 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. 855A of 2008, under Sections 498A, 304-B, 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Nagina, District Bijnore, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the F.I.R dated 03.07.2008 was lodged on the basis of an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with the allegation that on account of non fulfillment of demand of dowry the informant's daughter was used to harass and torture by her in-laws including her husband and ultimately she was done to death. After investigation police submitted final report against the present applicants, upon which notice was issued to the informant, who, thereafter, filed protest petition, thereafter, applicants were summoned by the court concerned on 02.04.2009. Against the said summoning order the applicants filed criminal revision before this Court and this Court vide order dated 05.05.2009 stayed the said summoning order. Thereafter, vide order dated 02.12.2016 this Court dismissed the said criminal revision. After dismissal of criminal revision, the trial proceeded and the court concerned issued non bailable warrants against the applicant, whereafter, applicants filed anticipatory bail before the court of Session, who vide order dated 27.03.2025 rejected the same. Thus, learned counsel submits that there is an apprehension that the applicants may be arrested in the above- mentioned case. It has further been submitted that applicants have no criminal antecedents. It was also submitted that applicants undertake to cooperate during investigation and trial and they would appear as and when required by the court concerned. It has been stated that in case, the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. 4. Learned A.G.A. hase opposed the application for anticipatory bail by contending that since non bailable warrants have been issued against the applicants to face the trial, therefore, the applicants do not deserve any indulgence at this stage. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. The anticipatory bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Mustaqeem. Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad