Allahabad High Court
AMOD KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The court held that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out and therefore granted bail to the applicant.
Summary
Amod Kumar applied for bail in a criminal case under Section 108 of the B.N.S., alleging false implication in a suicide‑abetment charge. The applicant argued that he was not named in the alleged suicide note and that the FIR and investigation material did not establish the essential ingredients of the offence. The State opposed bail but could not rebut the applicant’s submissions. The court, after examining the record, held that no direct act attributable to the applicant could be construed as instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid, and noted his clean record and six‑month confinement. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions to appear in court, not tamper with evidence, and not pressurize witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations in the FIR and investigation material satisfy the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 108 B.N.S.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or delaying trial if released on bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 108
Subjects
- bail
- Section 108
- abetment of suicide
- false implication
- criminal procedure
- conditions of bail
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12220 of 2026
Amod Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Kumar, Rakesh Kumar Rathore,
Sanjeev Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned AGA for
the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record.
2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 11 of 2025, under Section 108 B.N.S.,
Police Station- GRP Tundla, District- Firozabad, during the pendency of the
trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The applicant was not named in the alleged
suicide note. Further, as per the allegations in the first information report, the
alleged suicide note and the material collected during the course of
investigation, the essential ingredients to constitute the offence under
Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. Mere allegations of extending threats
or harassment in the absence of any positive act of instigation or intentional
aid on the part of the applicant would not constitute the offence of abetment
of suicide. In support of his submission, counsel for the applicant has placed
reliance on the judgement 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 others (Criminal Appeal Nos.2177-2185 of
2024) decided on 18.08.2025. The applicant is in jail since 14.3.2026 having
no criminal antecedents and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not
misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily
dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
BAIL No. 12220 of 2026
2
5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this
Court prima facie finds that as per the allegations in the first information
report, the alleged suicide note and the material collected during the course
of investigation, the essential ingredients to constitute the offence under
Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. There is no direct act attributable to the
applicant that could be construed as instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid
to the commission of suicide. Moreover, the applicant has no criminal
antecedents and has remained confined for almost six months and after
submission of the charge sheet 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 delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on
merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be
enlarged on bail.
6. Let the applicant Amod Kumar, involved in the aforesaid case crime be
released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the
conditions that he:
(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;
(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
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 11, 2026
Manish Kr
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…