Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Gourav Pathak – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 4844 of 2025 (@ SLP(Crl.) NO(s). 13309 of 2025)
Decided On : 12-11-2025
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 482 – Anticipatory bail application – FIR lodged in respect of offences punishable under Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 67A of Information Technology Act, 2000 – Parties were in a relationship even prior to allegations made by second respondent as against appellant herein – Respondent was constrained to file FIR owing to apprehension and misunderstanding on the premise that appellant may not keep-up his promise of marrying her – However, since parties are married that apprehension no longer survives and allegations made by second respondent against appellant and his family members will pale into insignificance – Impugned order set aside and relief of anticipatory bail granted – FIR stands quashed as against appellant and his family members. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 15 and 16)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal challenges impugned judgment and order dated 06.08.2025 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 482 BNSS No.6019 of 2025.
Findings of Court:
Relief granted to appellant herein would now become otiose in view of the fact that joint application filed by appellant and second respondent herein which we have taken on record and perused ought to be allowed and is allowed.
Result : Criminal Appeal disposed of with directions.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The appellant, Gourav Pathak, initially sought anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR lodged against him and his family members under various sections, including Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act (!) .
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad rejected the anticipatory bail application, leading to the filing of the present appeal (!) (!) .
The Supreme Court issued a direction that no coercive steps be taken against the appellant pending the appeal (!) .
Subsequently, the appellant and the second respondent got married, and a joint application was filed seeking to quash the FIR against the appellant and his family members, based on their marriage and ongoing relationship (!) (!) .
The Court observed that the parties were in a relationship prior to the allegations and that the apprehension leading to the FIR no longer persisted after their marriage (!) (!) (!) .
The Court noted that the allegations against the appellant and his family members would lose significance given the marriage and the current circumstances (!) .
The impugned order rejecting anticipatory bail was set aside, and the relief of anticipatory bail was granted to the appellant (!) .
The Court also allowed the joint application and quashed the FIR against the appellant and his family members, rendering it ineffective (!) (!) .
The overall outcome was the disposal of the criminal appeal with directions to quash the FIR, and pending applications, if any, were also disposed of accordingly (!) (!) .
These points reflect the Court's reasoning and final decision, emphasizing the significance of the marriage and the subsequent joint application in resolving the case.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the impugned judgment and order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 482 BNSS No.6019 of 2025.
3. Apprehending arrest in connection with the crime registered pursuant to FIR No.0676 of 2025 dated 07.06.2025 lodged with Police Station Indirapuram, District Tran Hindon (Commissionerate Ghaziabad) in respect of the offences punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”), Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the appellant preferred an application before the High Court seeking anticipatory bail in terms of Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”).
4. Said application for anticipatory bail having been rejected by the High Court vide impugned order dated 06.08.2025, the instant appeal has been preferred.
5. Vide order dated 01.09.2025, this Court issued notice in the instant matter and directed that no coercive steps shall be taken as against the petitioner herein in relation to the aforementioned FIR.
6. We have heard learned counsel in support of the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-State.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that by interim order dated 01.09.2025 interim protection was granted to the appellant herein and thereafter on 06.09.2025, the appellant and respondent No.2 have got married. In the circumstances, the interim order may be made absolute by granting anticipatory bail.
8. In addition, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the second respondent jointly submitted that in view of the marriage between the appellant and the second respondent, a joint application (I.A.No.266253/2025) has been filed by them seeking quashing of FIR No.0676/2025 dated 07.06.2025 lodged at Police Station Indirapuram, District Tran Hindon (Commissionerate Ghaziabad) in respect of the offences punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which was lodged by respondent No.2 against the appellant and the members of his family.
9. Learned counsel for the respective private parties submitted that since the parties have married each other and are living happily at Bengaluru, therefore, the joint application may be taken into consideration and while granting relief to the appellant herein the joint application may also be allowed and the complaint filed by the second respondent against the appellant and his family members may be quashed.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that having regard to the developments in the case and the joint application filed by the private parties, appropriate orders may be made in the case.
11. We note that the parties were in a relationship even prior to the allegations made by the second respondent as against the appellant herein.
12. Learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that she was constrained to file the FIR owing to an apprehension and misunderstanding on the premise that the appellant may not keep-up his promise of marrying her.
13. However, since the parties are married that apprehension no longer survives and the allegations made by the second respondent against the appellant and his family members will pale into insignificance.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant also endorsed the very same submissions.
15. We have taken note of the facts of this case and the developments which have taken place in this matter since the time notice was issued to the respondent herein.
16. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and grant the relief of anticipatory bail which has been sought by the appellant herein. However, we find that the aforesaid relief granted to the appellant herein would now become otiose in view of the fact that the j
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
