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.

Gourav Pathak vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1935

B. V. NAGARATHNA, R. MAHADEVAN
Gourav Pathak – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Mridul Jindal, Adv. Mr. Piyush Tandon, Adv. Mr. Mohit Agnihotri, Adv. Ms. Indira Goswami, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rishi Matoliya, AOR Mr. Nikhil Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Kshitish Bikarmia, Adv. Mr. Raghuveer Pujari, Adv. Ms. Sumati Sharma, Adv. Dr. Vijendra Singh, AOR Ms. Harshita Raghuvanshi, Adv. Ms. Ashwina Lakra, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

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 le

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(SC) 1935

B. V. NAGARATHNA, R. MAHADEVANGourav Pathak – AppellantVersusState of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent

Related Judgments

Samcar Glass Ltd. VS Commissioner of Central Exicse, Jaipur

Plastikos Packaging VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad

SYSTEMS MANUFACTURING LTD VS SYSTEMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 665

JOGENDRA SINGH VS SURESH MANJULAPUR - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 662

MYSORE WINE PRODUCTS AND ALLIED CO. LTD. , BANGALORE VS PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 663

Bose VS State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Salaikiramam P. S. , - 2000 Supreme(Mad) 1273

Jain Construction Company VS State of Rajasthan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 912

Voltas Limited VS Joint Collector, Medak - 2000 Supreme(AP) 945

STATE OF BIHAR VS SURENDRA SINGH RAUTELA ALIAS BENGALI - 2000 Supreme(Jhk) 45

Krishna Kumar VS Gulab Khan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 1546

B. V. NAGARATHNA, R. MAHADEVAN
Gourav Pathak – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent