Shyam Narayan and Another vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9971 of 2025

Shyam Narayan And Another		.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State of U.P.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Surendra Mohan Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 64

¶5

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶6

Heard counsel for the applicants as well as Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

This application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants in Case Crime No.177 of 2025, under sections 85, 108 B.N.S., and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Etwa, District Siddharth Nagar.

¶8

Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant no.1 is the father-inlaw and applicant no.2 is the mother-in-law of the deceased and have been falsely implicated in the present case. According to the postmortem report, cause of death is asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. As per the allegations in the first information report, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S., are not made out against the applicants. The applicants, in no manner, abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. In support of his submission, counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Nipun Aneja and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2017) decided on 03.10.2024 and Abhinav Mohan Delkar vs. The State of Maharashtra and other (Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-2185 of 2024) decided on 18.8.2025 . The deceased was not subjected to any cruelty for demand of dowry. At this stage, there is no credible evidence to link the applicants with the offence. The applicants have no criminal antecedents. Investigation is pending. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest in the above mentioned case. In

¶9

NABAIL No. 9971 of 2025

¶10

2

¶11

case, the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the said liberty.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the application for grant of anticipatory bail be confined only till the submission of police report.

¶14

Having regard to the submissions made, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicants and the fact that according to the postmortem report the cause of death is asphyxia due to antemortem hanging; the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S., are not made out against the applicants; at this stage, there is no substantive evidence to link the applicants with the offence, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled for anticipatory bail till the submission of police report.

¶15

In the event of arrest, the applicants Shyam Narayan and Smt. Kesari be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime till the submission of police report, if any, under section 193(3) B.N.S.S. on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶17

(ii) The applicants 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶18

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶19

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to

¶20

NABAIL No. 9971 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

the applicants.

¶23

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicants.

¶24

The applicants are directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶25

The application stands disposed of.

(Vivek Varma,J.)

December 1, 2025

S.S.

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shyam Narayan and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Narayan and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akram vs State of U.P.

Sumit vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anuj vs State of U.P.

Lalta Prasad vs State of U.P.

Arya Pratap Yadav @ Prince vs State of U.P.

Vansh Sharma vs State of U.P.