Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85675 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 4000 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt. Gyanwati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Pati Tiwari,Deepak Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, the 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. 86 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2), 115(2), 351(2) of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Fafund, District Auraiya, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on anticipatory bail. 3. As per the prosecution case, the informant had solemnized marriage of his daughter with the son of applicant with sufficient dowry, but the in-laws of his daughter were not satisfied with the same and used to make demand of additional dowry in the form of motorcycle and golden necklace and on account of non fulfillment thereof his daughter was subjected to cruelty and mental agony, and ultimately, she was done to death by hanging. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased, she is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that false allegation has been made for commissioning of crime. The son of applicant and the deceased solemnized marriage on their own sweet will. General role of demand of dowry has been made against the applicant. In the postmortem of the deceased, except one ligature mark all around the neck of the deceased no other injury was found on her person and her cause of death was found to be asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. Learned counsel further submits that there is no direct or indirect evidence against the applicant in commissioning of the offence. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he 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 and that no coercive process has been issued against the applicant so far. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to cooperate during investigation and trial and she 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 cooperate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail. 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 Mustaqeem. Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad