Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87377 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6375 of 2024 Applicant :- Devendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Singh Chahar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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. 369 of 1995 under Sections 498A, 304B, 201 I.P.C., and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Fatehpur Sikri, District Agra, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail. 3. Vide order dated 09.07.2025, co-ordinate Bench of this Court had granted interim anticipatory bail to the applicant.. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the Dewar of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that there is no cogent and credible evidence against the applicant to connect him commission of alleged offence. Learned counsel further argued that at the time of alleged offence, the applicant was minor and when the summons were issued against the applicant, the applicant approached this Court by way of filing Criminal Misc. (482) Application No. 5507 of 1997 in which interim protection was granted but the same was dismissed as having become infructuous vide order dated 09.02.1998. It has also been submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents and the applicant undertakes to co-operate during the 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, he 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. opposed the anticipatory bail and argued that credible evidence has been collected during the investigation, which has culminated in submission of charge sheet. He further submits that the offence pertains to Section 304-B I.P.C., which offence is against the society and therefore the applicant is not entitled for indulgence by this Court. 6. In the 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. Interim order, if any stands vacated. 9. The anticipatory bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 S.Ali Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad