HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 7288 of 2025 Court No. - 70 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. Sri Vijay Prakash Chaturvedi, learned counsel has filed his power on behalf of the informant today in the Court, which is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, 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.110 of 2025 under Sections 85, 108 of B.N.S., and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kathela Samay Mata, District Siddharth Nagar with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. 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 her 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. On the fateful day, there was quarrel between the mother-in-law and the deceased on account of such quarrel, the deceased along with her two minor children drowned. Learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the subsequent statement (Majeed Bayan) of informant, who has Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Chanchal Kumar Singh, Satish Chandra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Hriday Ram Chauhan .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) categorically stated that on the day of incident, there was a quarrel between the mother-in-law and the deceased on account of which, she committed suicide. It has also been stated by the informant that the husband is doing job and is residing at Delhi. It is thus contended that no ingredients of abetment is made out against the applicant. Learned counsel further 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 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. as well as learned counsel for the informant have 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, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. 8. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 9. In the event of arrest of the applicant-Hriday Ram Chauhan involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail till submission of police report on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House NABAIL No. 7288 of 2025 2 Officer of the police station concerned the following conditions :- (i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) the applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) the applicant would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail. 10. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. September 8, 2025 S.Ali NABAIL No. 7288 of 2025 3 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad