General and omnibus allegations against matrimonial relatives in dowry cases warrant the grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicants (parents-in-law) sought anticipatory bail regarding FIR No. 22/2026 registered at P.S. Kasdol.

The complainant, Meenakshi Sahu, alleged that following her marriage to Jaikant Sahu (the applicants' son) in December 2024, she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty and demands for an additional ₹5,00,000 and a car.

The complainant alleged that while specific physical cruelty was committed by the husband, the applicants engaged in general harassment and taunting.

The defense argued the allegations were vague and omnibus, noting the complainant only resided in the matrimonial home for 10–15 days.

Whether the applicants are entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the nature of the matrimonial allegations.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding anticipatory bail.

It relied on the landmark principles established in *Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar*, *Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand*, and *Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P.*, which mandate that arrest should not be routine in matrimonial disputes and that general, omnibus allegations against relatives should not automatically lead to prosecution or incarceration.

The underlying offences involved Sections 85 (cruelty), 296 (obscenity/insult), and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The Court observed that the dispute appeared primarily matrimonial in character and noted the lack of specific overt acts attributed to the applicants, characterizing the allegations as general in nature.

It took into account that the offences alleged carry a maximum punishment of less than seven years, triggering the restrictive arrest guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court.

The Court further considered the fact that the matter had already been referred to mediation.

Finding no immediate risk of the applicants absconding or tampering with evidence, the Court determined that custodial interrogation was not warranted.

It held that in the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and one local surety, subject to conditions including cooperation with the trial, non-tampering of evidence, and submission of Aadhaar verification.

The Court clarified that this grant of bail was based on the specific facts of the matrimonial dispute without expressing a final opinion on the merits of the case.