The Allahabad High Court has held that the dismissal of an accused's petition to quash an FIR does not stop them from applying for anticipatory bail. The Court made it clear that these two legal remedies operate under different principles and must be considered independently.
This observation was made by Justice Subhash Vidyarthi while hearing the anticipatory bail plea of a 21-year-old student, Prashant Shukla, who was booked under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Dowry Protection Act in a case concerning an alleged dowry death.
Read also: Allahabad High Court: Accused on Bail Has No Right to Foreign Travel for Weddings or Pleasure Trips
The FIR accuses the applicant’s mother, father, and elder brother (the deceased’s husband) of harassing the woman over dowry demands. It was alleged that on March 29, 2025, the applicant’s mother strangled the deceased.
"A writ petition for quashing the FIR and an application for anticipatory bail are altogether different remedies, which are to be decided on different sets of considerations and grounds," the Court observed.
The applicant, a B.Tech student, approached the High Court after his request for interim protection from arrest was rejected by the Sessions Court. His counsel emphasized that he had upcoming exams and sought relief from arrest to avoid disruption in his studies.
Opposing the plea, the Additional Government Advocate and the informant’s counsel argued against granting anticipatory bail. The informant's lawyer specifically pointed out that the applicant and his co-accused had previously filed a petition to quash the FIR, which was later dismissed as withdrawn.
The Court, however, rejected the argument that such dismissal barred the accused from seeking anticipatory bail.
"Dismissal of the writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR would not create a bar on the filing of an application for the grant of anticipatory bail," the bench stated, adding that such applications must be evaluated based on the specific facts of the case.
Upon reviewing the case details, the Court noted that the postmortem report raised doubts about the exact cause of death. It mentioned a ligature mark around the neck with a 6cm interruption, concluding that the cause of death was asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. Notably, no other injuries were found on the body, and no direct allegations were made against the applicant.
"Although the FIR alleges that the applicant's mother (co-accused Rekha) strangulated the deceased with the help of other accused persons, the postmortem examination report only mentions a ligature mark… that the cause of death has been opined to be asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging… no specific allegation has been levelled against the applicant," the Court noted.
Considering his age, educational background, and lack of specific allegations, the Court allowed the anticipatory bail application.
Case title - Prashant Shukla vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another
