Allahabad High Court
BHAGWANDIN SHUKLAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, directing release on bail until the trial concludes, subject to conditions.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Bhagwandin Shukla, who was implicated in a dowry‑death case under Sections 498‑A, 323, 504, 304‑B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicant had previously been granted limited anticipatory bail until the police report was filed, but a charge‑sheet was later submitted. He argued that he was innocent, had cooperated with the investigation, and that bail should continue until the trial concludes, relying on Supreme Court precedents. The State opposed the relief but did not dispute the factual background. Relying on the principles articulated in Aman Preet Singh v. CBI and Sushila Aggarwal v. State, the Court held that the applicant’s long‑standing freedom and lack of arrest justified extending anticipatory bail. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail with a personal bond, sureties, and conditions to ensure cooperation and prevent tampering with evidence.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate scope of anticipatory bail when a charge‑sheet has been filed in a non‑bailable offence?
- Whether the applicant’s cooperation and lack of prior arrest justify extending anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 170, 173, 438, 482, 87
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 304-B, 323, 498-A, 504
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry death
- IPC
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- CrPC
- non‑bailable offence
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 10041 of 2026
Bhagwandin Shukla
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajesh Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
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
NABAIL No. 10041 of 2026
2
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
3
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
4
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.
(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
September 24, 2026
Lalit Shukla
Digitally signed by :-
LALIT KUMAR SHUKLA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…