MALTI @ MALTI DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 10004 of 2026

Malti @ Malti Devi
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Neetu Singh, Nishant Kumar, Prashant
                                Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 72
                 HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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.485 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85, 115(2) of B.N.S. and
Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station - Jawan, District Aligarh, with a
prayer to grant her anticipatory bail.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is absolutely
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; she has nothing
to do with the alleged offence in spite of that the police are trying to arrest
the applicant. The applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The
applicant and five other persons have been nominated in the FIR dated
19.12.2026 in respect of the alleged incident dated 17.12.2026. It is
further contended that general and omnibus allegations have been levelled
against the applicant. The arrest of the applicant has been stayed by the
Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.01.2026 in Criminal
Misc. Writ Petition No. 865 of 2026. The applicant has cooperated in the
investigation, and now the charge sheet has been submitted on
16.03.2026, whereupon the learned court concerned has taken cognizance
on 18.03.2026. No non-bailable warrant has been issued by the learned
court concerned. It is further submitted that the post-mortem report of the
deceased suggests that she committed suicide. The cause of death has
                                                            NABAIL No. 10004 of 2026
                                   2


been mentioned as asphyxia as a result of hanging; therefore, there
appears to be a case of suicidal death. It is contended that co-accused
Prempal Sharma, the father-in-law of the deceased, has been granted
regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
16.02.2026 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5531 of 2026. The
bail application of co-accused Shivam, the husband of the deceased, has
been rejected by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.07.2026
in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10265 of 2026. The husband of
the deceased is still in jail. It is further contended that since the arrest of
the applicant was stayed by this Court and the charge sheet has been
submitted, there is no requirement for custodial interrogation of the
applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to her credit. Learned
counsel for the applicant lastly contended that the applicant undertakes to
cooperate during trial and shall appear as and when required by the court
concerned. It has also been stated that, in case the applicant is granted
anticipatory bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail, shall cooperate with
the trial, 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 rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.

6. The chargesheet has already been submitted in this case and there is no
allegation against the applicant that she did not cooperate with the
investigation. The court concerned has taken cognizance of the offence.
There is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the applicant.

7. 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
                                                             NABAIL No. 10004 of 2026
                                   3


     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
     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."

8. Hence, considering the settled principles 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 of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a
fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till conclusion of trial in the
matter.

9. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with following
directions:-

(i) In the event of arrest of the applicant- Malti @ Malti Devi, involved in
the aforesaid case, she shall be released on anticipatory bail till the
conclusion of trial, on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with
two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned.
                                                                                          NABAIL No. 10004 of 2026
                                                                    4


                                    (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 to
                                    dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court; and

                                    (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of
                                    the Court.

                                    10. 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
                                    Radhika

                                                                                        (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad