HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 10226 of 2026 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Pranshu Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashutosh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 161 of 2026, under Sections 80(2), 85, 115(2), 351(2) BNS and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Mawana, District Meerut with a prayer to grant him anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the alleged offence in spite of that the police are trying to arrest the applicant. The first information report of the present case was lodged against nine persons including the present applicant. The alleged incident is said to have taken place on 19.4.2026 at 12:30 P.M. The applicant is brother- in-law of the deceased. Prior to death of the deceased her two dying declaration were recorded by the Investigating Officer. First statement / dying declaration of the deceased was recorded on 23.4.2026, wherein she did not take name of the applicant as an accused rather she stated that the applicant went to his shop at the time of incident and her husband and brother-in-law (jeth) were present in Delhi. She further stated that her mother-in-law, two sisters-in-law (nanad and devrani) were present in the house at the time of alleged incident. The deceased specifically stated that her mother-in-law poured kerosene oil and set her on fire. Thereafter, second Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pranshu Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashutosh Singh, G.A., Neetu Mobin .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) statement of the deceased was recorded on 1.5.2026, wherein she reiterated the allegations made in her earlier statement, however, this time, she claimed the presence of the applicant in the house at 08:00-08:30 A.M. She alleged that she was beaten up by the applicant and others on the date of incident and claimed that the applicant was also present in the house at the time of the alleged incident, however, she further alleged that she was set on fire by her mother-in-law. No specific role has been attributed to the applicant. The Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation, collected call detail records of the applicant and found that the applicant was present in his shop at the time of alleged incident and rushed to his house after the incident. It is further submitted that the second statement was given by the deceased after due consultation with her family members. Infact, the applicant was not present in his house at the time of alleged incident. 4. It is further submitted that there is specific allegation against him and two sisters-in-law (nanad and devrani) of the deceased and that the applicant was not present in the house, therefore, the applicant cannot be held responsible for the offence. It is further submitted that initially the applicant was not charge-sheeted and he was exonerated by the Investigating Officer but during the course of further investigation, he was also made accused in the present case on the strength of subsequent statement of the parents-in-law of the deceased. The co-accused Salim (father-in-law) and Abdul (husband of the deceased) have been enlarged on regular bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.7.2026 and 17.8.2026 respectively, a copy of the orders have been appended as Annexure-19 to the application. It is further submitted that the bail application of the mother-in-law has been rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.9.2026. The applicant has no criminal antecedent to his credit and the investigation is almost complete and that the charge-sheet has already been submitted against the other co-accused, therefore, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant undertakes to cooperate during investigation and trial and shall appear as and when required by the Investigating Agency or the Court concerned. It has also been stated that, in case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail, shall cooperate with the investigation, and shall abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by the Court. NABAIL No. 10226 of 2026 2 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the factual aspect. 6. I have heard the rival submissions of both sides and perused the record. 7. The applicant has not been nominated by the deceased in her first dying declaration / statement. No reason whatsoever has been given by the deceased or any other witness as to why name of the applicant was not taken by the deceased in her first statement. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Vasheela (mother-in-law), Alina (devrani) and Shahzadi (nanad) and parity of this order would not be granted to them. 8. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion. 9. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the NABAIL No. 10226 of 2026 3 accused. 10. 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 merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. 11. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with following directions:- (i) In the event of arrest of the applicant-Mobin involved in aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial, on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned or to the court concerned; (ii) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation; (iii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. 12. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant, before the concerned court. September 30, 2026 Lalit Shukla NABAIL No. 10226 of 2026 4 (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- LALIT KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad