Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:137776 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 6321 of 2025 Applicant :- Sri Ram Prajapati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Waseem,Zulekha Begum Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J. 1. Sri Sarvesh Pandey and Jitendra Nath Tiwari, learned counsel have filed their power on behalf of the informant today in the Court, which is taken on record. 2. Heard Zulekha Begum learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for first informant, Sri Chandan Singh learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The present anticipatory bail application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 71 of 2025, under Sections 498A, 304B, 504 I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Jigna, District Mirzapur, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. The applicant never demanded dowry or did he 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 bail application, it is submitted that the deceased was a temperamental lady who was prone to extreme reactions even on trivial issues by administering poison. She further submits that the applicant took the deceased to the hospital thereafter to the referred place, however she could not saved and taking undue advantage of the death of the deceased, her parents have falsely implicated the applicant in the present case. She also argued 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 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, 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. and learned counsel for first informant have opposed the application for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the informant further submits that instead of cremation, the accused persons have flushed the dead body of the deceased in the river, which itself shows that the applicant along with the co- accused have committed the offence. 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 :- 13.8.2025 S.Ali Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad