Allahabad High Court

RAM JI GONDversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 19 April 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the requisite elements of Section 108 B.N.S., and therefore the applicant is entitled to bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Ram Ji Gond, who was arrested in connection with a case under Section 108 of the B.N.S. alleging abetment of suicide. The post‑mortem report indicated death by asphyxia due to antemortem hanging, and the prosecution’s evidence, including witness statements, did not establish the mens rea or proximate act required for the offence. The applicant argued false implication, lack of criminal history, and reliance on Supreme Court precedents. The court found that the essential ingredients of the offence were not made out, there was no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation, and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon. Consequently, the court granted bail with standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the prosecution has established the essential ingredients of Section 108 B.N.S. against the applicant
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the pending trial for alleged abetment of suicide
Whether there is a risk of the applicant tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if released on bail

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 108

Subjects

bail
Section 108
abatement of suicide
mens rea
post‑mortem report
false implication
criminal procedure
bail conditions

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11566 of 2026

Ram Ji Gond
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akhilendra Choubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Copy of the postmortem report, produced by Sri Nagendra
Kumar Mishra, learned Brief Holder for the State, is taken on
record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nagendra
Kumar Mishra, learned Brief Holder for the State. Perused the
record.

3. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to
enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 169 of 2025,
under Sections 351(2), 108 B.N.S., Police Station- Sukhapura,
District- Ballia during pendency of the trial.

4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. As per the postmortem
report, cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem
hanging. Further, as per the allegations in the first information
report, statements of the witnesses namely Ravindar, Rajesh
Surendra Rajbhar, Lallan Paswan, Bachcha Lal Rai 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. The applicant, in
BAIL No. 11566 of 2026
2

no manner, abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased.
The prosecution case, as it stands, does not disclose the mens rea
or proximate act required to attract the said provision. 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 26.2.2026 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.

5. Learned AGA for the State opposed the prayer for bail but
could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from
the record.

6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the
record, this Court prima facie finds that according to the
postmortem report, cause of death is asphyxia as a result of
antemortem hanging. As per the allegations in the first
information report, statements of the witnesses 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 proximate or
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 more than one 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.
BAIL No. 11566 of 2026
3

7. Let the applicant, Ram Ji Gond involved in the aforesaid case
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.

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

April 20, 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…