Allahabad High Court
MEGHSHYAMversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The applicant is entitled to bail as the allegations do not satisfy the elements of an offence under Section 108 B.N.S. and there is no likelihood of interference with the trial.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Meghshyam, husband of a woman who died by hanging, in Criminal Case No. 673 of 2025 under Sections 115(2), 108(1) and 85 of the B.N.S. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, pointing to a four‑day delay in lodging the FIR and the absence of any direct act of abetment in the statements of six independent witnesses and the investigation report. The State opposed bail but could not rebut the claim that the ingredients of an offence under Section 108 B.N.S. were not established. The Court held that, prima facie, no case of abetment of suicide existed, the applicant had no criminal antecedents, and there was no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the Court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties and standard conditions. The order also allowed the prosecution to move for bail cancellation if any condition is breached.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations under Section 108 B.N.S. constitute an offence of abetment of suicide sufficient to deny bail
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR undermines the prosecution’s case
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if released on bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 108(1), 85
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 115(2)
Subjects
- bail
- abetment of suicide
- Section 108 B.N.S.
- delay in FIR
- witness tampering
- presumption of innocence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12984 of 2026
Meghshyam
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Lallan Prasad Pal, Saroj Kumar Dubey,
Vineet Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sushil Kumar Pandey
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, counsel for
the informant as well as 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. 673 of 2025, under Sections 115(2),
108(1), 85 B.N.S., Police Station- Jaint, District- Mathura, during the
pendency of the trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the
deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is
alleged to have occurred on 11.12.2025, whereas the first information report
was lodged on 15.12.2025. The inordinate delay in lodging the first
information report is fatal to the prosecution case. The deceased was married
to the applicant on 08.02.2013. As per the postmortem report, cause of death
is asphyxia due to hanging. Further, as per the allegations in the first
information report, statements of the independent witnesses, namely, Radhey
Shyam, Satyaveer, Smt. Radha Rani, Smt. Meena Devi, Smt. Geeta Devi and
Smt. Jagwati and the material collected during the course of investigation,
the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S.
are not made out. The applicant, in no manner, abetted the commission of
suicide by the deceased. 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
BAIL No. 12984 of 2026
2
since 27.12.2025 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.
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, statements of the independent witnesses, namely, Radhey Shyam,
Satyaveer, Smt. Radha Rani, Smt. Meena Devi, Smt. Geeta Devi and Smt.
Jagwati and the material collected during the course of investigation, the
necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are
not made out. 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. Moreover, the applicant has no criminal antecedents
and has remained confined for more than three 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 Meghshyam, 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.
April 20, 2026
Manish Kr
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…