HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 10041 of 2026 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant 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. 519 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P.Act, Police Station Akbarpur, District Kanpur Dehat 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 applicant is father-in-law of the deceased. As per prosecution case, the marriage between the son of the applicant and the deceased was solemnized on 18.6.2018, however, she was subjected cruelty for demand of dowry and the deceased committed suicide on account of demand of dowry on 5.12.2023. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant and five other co-accused were nominated in the first information report. General and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant. Cause of death is asphyxia as a result of hanging. The applicant was granted anticipatory bail till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 4.6.2024 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 5372 of 2024. Now, the charge-sheet has been submitted in the present case on 16.7.2024. The learned court Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajesh Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Bhagwandin Shukla .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) concerned has taken cognizance of the offence. The applicant has cooperated in the investigation. The other co-accused, namely, Atul Shukla @ Dhruv (Devar), Santoshi (Nanad) and Rahul Tiwari have been enlarged on anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.5.2024 and 39.5.2024 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. Nos. 5306 and 5121 of 2024 respectively. The case of the applicant is on more better footing than that of aforesaid co-accused. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the anticipatory bail application of the applicant ought to have been allowed till conclusion of trial in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, therefore, the present application should be allowed till conclusion of trial. 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. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the factual aspect. 5. I have heard the rival submissions of both sides and perused the record. 6. In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that : "11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87 Cr.P.C that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due NABAIL No. 10041 of 2026 2 service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of caution. 12. In sofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170Cr.P.C, the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non- bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this." 7. 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, and the case of the applicant is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with following directions:- (i) In the event of arrest/appearance of the applicant-Bhagwandin Shukla involved in aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial, before the competent Court on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned; (ii) The applicant shall co-operate during trial and shall report to the court concerned as and when required for the purpose of fair trial. (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 NABAIL No. 10041 of 2026 3 to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court; and (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. 9. 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 24, 2026 Lalit Shukla NABAIL No. 10041 of 2026 4 (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- LALIT KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad