Shyam Pyare @ Shyam Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C./ 482 BNSS has been filed by the accused-applicant who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Case Crime No. 276 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85 of BNS, 2023 and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Ghunghter, District Barabanki.

¶10

Brief facts of the present case are that an FIR has been lodged on 18.08.2025 under section 80 (2), 85 of BNS Act, 2023 (corresponding sections 304 B & 498-A of IPC) and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against four named accused persons including the present applicant alleging therein that love marriage of the sister of the informant was solemnized six years ago and from the said wedlock, two children were born and all the named accused persons used to harass his sister for demand of dowry and under pressure of the same, she committed suicide.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. The FIR has been lodged against all the family members by making general and omnibus allegations and has falsely implicated the whole family including the present applicant, which has been deprecated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in (2012)10 SCC 741 wherein it has been held that the mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the tendency of over implication.

¶12

It is further submitted that the there is no injury shown on the body of the deceased except the injury which originates from the cause of death i.e. asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. It is a case of suicide. At this juncture,

¶13

NABAIL No. 624 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

he placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangat Ram Vs. State of Haryana (2014) INSC 214 wherein it has been held that there are several cause or reasons for a woman to commit suicide.

¶16

It is further submitted that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Payal Sharma vs. State of Punjab & Anr. passed in SLP (Crl.) No.3995 of 2022 dated 26.11.2024 , wherein it has been observed that in matrimonial disputes exaggerated version of the incident are reflected by making allegation against all the family members and the Court should be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with such complaints.

¶17

It is further submitted that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant. There is no eye witness of the alleged incident. Applicant has no criminal history.

¶18

It is further submitted that the co-accused i.e. mother in law of the deceased/wife of the applicant has already been granted regular bail by the learned trial court itself by order dated 31.10.2025. The order of co-accused i.e. mother in law of the deceased/wife is enclosed as annexure no. 7 to the present anticipatory bail application.

¶19

It is further submitted that the applicant on oath has specifically stated in paragraph nos. 42 to 47 that he will co-operate in the investigation; he will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court; will not influence any witness or temper with prosecution evidence and will not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail, if granted.

¶20

It is further submitted that the applicant is apprehending arrest by the Police and that is why, he has approached this Court by filing the present anticipatory bail application.

¶21

On the other hand, learned AGA opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and has submitted that from the FIR, the offence is made out against the applicant but he is unable to dispute the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant.

¶22

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, prima facie, it is found that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased; there are general allegations against the family members including the present applicant, which has been deprecated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra); there was no injury on the body of the deceased; as per the medical report cause of death shown is Asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging; as per the settled law in the case of Mangat Ram (supra) wherein it has been held that there are several cause or reasons for a woman to commit suicide; there is no eye-witness of the incident; co-accused i.e. mother-in-law /wife of the applicant has already been granted bail by the trial Court.

¶23

NABAIL No. 624 of 2026

¶24

3

¶25

As per the judgment in the case of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat reported in MANU/SC/0949/2015 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended, the previous criminal antecedents of the applicant whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction, the possibility of applicant to flee and where the accusation has been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him.

¶26

In the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [AIR 1994 SC 1349], the Apex Court has referred to the third report of National Police Commission wherein it is mentioned that arrests by the police in India is one of the chief source of corruption in the police. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental rights and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative. According to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the peculiar case the arrest of an accused should be made.

¶27

After the lodging of FIR the arrest can be made by the police at will. There is no definite period fixed for the police to arrest an accused against whom an FIR has been lodged. The applicant has not previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by the Court; as undertaken by the learned counsel for the applicant there is no possibility of fleeing from the judicial proceedings and in the light of aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, this Court finds it a fit case to issue order of anticipatory bail as per Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C./ 482 BNSS.

¶28

Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while granting anticipatory bail to the applicant namely Shyam Pyare @ Shyam Singh till disposal of the trial by appearing before the court concerned and should furnish bail bonds and sureties to the satisfaction of the trial/concerned Court, subject to the following conditions:-

¶29

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required and shall not abscond;

¶30

(ii) that 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶31

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶32

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶33

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶34

NABAIL No. 624 of 2026

¶35

4

¶36