Allahabad High Court

RAMNARESHversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 29 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

In the absence of any direct act of instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid and with inconclusive forensic findings, the applicant is entitled to bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Ramnaresh, accused under Section 108 of the B.N.S. for alleged abetment to suicide. The applicant argued that the post‑mortem report could not ascertain the cause of death, the viscera report was missing, and there was no concrete evidence of his instigating or aiding the suicide. The State opposed bail but could not refute these points. The Court found that the essential ingredients of the offence were not established, the applicant had no criminal history, and had been in custody for nine months without a prospect of speedy trial. Consequently, the Court ordered his release on bail subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the evidence establishes the elements of abetment to suicide under Section 108 B.N.S.
Whether the inconclusive post‑mortem findings and absence of viscera report preclude a prima facie case against the applicant
Whether the applicant's lack of criminal antecedents and prolonged pre‑trial detention justify granting bail

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 108

Subjects

bail
abetment to suicide
Section 108
postmortem
pre‑trial detention
evidence tampering
witness intimidation

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11051 of 2026

Ramnaresh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashok Kumar Mishra, Azad
Khan, Mohammad Imran
Khan, Sunil Verma, Yatish
Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rupak
Chaubey, learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to
enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 112 of 2025,
under Section 108 B.N.S., Police Station- Kharela, District-
Mahoba during pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. As per the postmortem
report, cause of death could not be ascertained. Viscera was
preserved and sent for chemical analysis. Viscera report is not
part of the case diary. Further, as per the allegations in the first
information report, the alleged video recording of the deceased
and the material collected during the course of the investigation,
the essential ingredients to constitute the offence under Section
108 B.N.S., are not made out against the applicant. Mere
allegations that the applicant used to converse with the deceased
over the mobile phone and exerted pressure upon her to marry
him, in absence of any positive act of instigation, intentional aid,
BAIL No. 11051 of 2026
2

on the part of the applicant, would not by themselves constitute
the offence of abetment to suicide. In support of his submission,
counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgements of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Nipun Aneja and
others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 654 of
2017) decided on 03.10.2024 and Abhinav Mohan Delkar vs.
The State of Maharashtra and other (Criminal Appeal Nos.
2177-2185 of 2024) decided on 18.8.2025. The applicant is in jail
since 3.1.2026 having no criminal history. Investigation has been
completed and charge-sheet has been filed. In case he is enlarged
on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but
could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from
the record.

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the
record, this Court prima facie finds that the as per the postmortem
report, cause of death could not be ascertained. Viscera was
preserved and sent for chemical analysis. Viscera report is not
part of the case diary. Further, as per the allegations in the first
information report, the alleged video recording of the deceased
and the material collected during the course of the investigation,
the essential ingredients to constitute the offence under Section
108 B.N.S., are not made out against the applicant. There is no
direct act attributable to the applicant that could be construed as
instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid to the commission of
suicide. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant
has presently remained confined for almost nine month and there
is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no
reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State
that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with
the evidence or intimidate the witness, without commenting on
the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is
entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. Let the applicant, Ramnaresh involved in the aforesaid case
BAIL No. 11051 of 2026
3

be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two
sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court
concerned on the following conditions that:

i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;

iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the
trial court.

7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the
prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation
application before this Court.

September 30, 2026
S.S.

(Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…