Allahabad High Court
SMT. PREETI @ RUBYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The court held that, given the applicant's lack of criminal antecedent and no risk of tampering or fleeing, anticipatory bail under Section 482 CrPC is warranted.
Summary
The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Smt. Preeti @ Ruby under Section 482 of the CrPC in a criminal case (Crime No. 126 of 2026) alleging her involvement in the death of a woman. The applicant claimed innocence, stating that the FIR was based on false allegations and that medical evidence did not support the claim of poisoning. The State opposed the bail but did not dispute the factual background. Relying on precedents (Sushila Aggarwal and Siddharth) the Court examined the nature of the offence, the applicant's role, and the risk of tampering or fleeing, concluding that no such risk existed. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail with a personal bond and specific conditions, allowing the applicant to remain free until trial conclusion.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant under Section 482 CrPC in view of the nature of the alleged offence and the applicant's role.
- Whether there is a likelihood of the applicant influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, or absconding.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482, 80(2), 85
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- personal liberty
- false implication
- investigation cooperation
- bail conditions
- Uttar Pradesh
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9725 of 2026
Smt. Preeti @ Ruby
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mukesh Joshi
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. 126 of 2026, under Sections 85, 80(2) BNS, Police Station Civil
Lines, District Rampur 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 aunt (chachi) of the husband of the deceased.
The first information report was lodged against the applicant, real mother-in-
law and husband of the deceased. The deceased and her husband solemnized
a love marriage against wishes of the first informant. The deceased and her
husband filed Writ C No. 3789 of 2023 against the present informant, which
was disposed of vide order dated 3.2.2023 and the respondents were directed
not to interfere in the peaceful married life of the petitioners. It is further
submitted that the deceased died unnatural death. No injury was noticed on
the body of the deceased in her postmortem report. Cause of death could not
be ascertained, hence viscera was preserved for chemical analysis. As per
viscera report, no poisonous substance was found in the body of the
deceased. The applicant being mother-in-law (chachiya saas) has no concern
with the matrimonial life of the deceased and her husband. General and
omnibus allegations have been levelled in the first information report. False
NABAIL No. 9725 of 2026
2
allegation was levelled by the informant that some poisonous substance was
administered to the deceased, which is not corroborated with the medical
evidence / viscera report of the deceased. The applicant has no criminal
antecedent to her credit. 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, she 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 Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another,
(2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an
application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature
of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the
course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating
witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It
has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by
considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role
attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering
whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a
matter of discretion.
7. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme
Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is
an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an
accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes
necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of
influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest
can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made.
A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and
the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause
incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the
NABAIL No. 9725 of 2026
3
Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond
or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the
investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the
accused.
8. 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, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.
9. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with following
directions:-
(i) In the event of arrest of the applicant-Smt. Preeti @ Ruby involved in
aforesaid case 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 Station House Officer of the
police station concerned or to the court concerned;
(ii) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during
investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when
required for the purpose of conducting investigation;
(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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
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.
(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
September 18, 2026
Lalit Shukla
Digitally signed by :-
LALIT KUMAR SHUKLA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…