Allahabad High Court
JITENDRA @ JEETU SAVITAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The applicant is entitled to bail as the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of Section 108 B.N.S. and there is no material risk of tampering or intimidation.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Jitendra @ Jeetu Savita, husband of a deceased woman, in a case (Crime No. 0201 of 2025) alleging abetment of suicide under Sections 85 and 108 of the B.N.S. Act and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act. The applicant argued that the death was due to antemortem hanging, that forensic reports were missing from the case diary, and that the FIR, independent witness statements, and investigation material did not establish the ingredients of Section 108. The State opposed bail but could not rebut these points. The Court held that no proximate act of instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid could be attributed to the applicant, noted his clean record and four‑month confinement, and found no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the Court granted bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions of appearance, non‑tampering, and non‑pressurisation of witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the ingredients of offence under Section 108 of the B.N.S. Act (abetment of suicide) are made out against the applicant.
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail considering the nature of the accusation, his antecedents, and risk of tampering or intimidation.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. Act — s. 108, 85
- D.P. Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- abetment of suicide
- Section 108
- false implication
- evidence tampering
- witness intimidation
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13005 of 2026
Jitendra @ Jeetu Savita
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kumar Kartikeya, Shresth Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Nagendra Mishra, learned Brief
Holder 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. 0201 of 2025, under Sections 85, 108
B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Radhanagar, District- Fatehpur,
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. As per the
postmortem report, cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem
hanging.Viscera, blood sample and stomach content were preserved for
chemical analysis and nail clipping, nail scraping of both hand fingers were
preserved for foreign body traces and tapping surrounding neck with four
slides were preserved for fiber and foreign body traces. The viscera report,
reports of blood sample and other reports are not part of the case diary.
Further, as per the allegations in the first information report, statements of
the independent witness, namely, Munna Yadav, Manju Yadav 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 since 10.12.2025
having no criminal antecedents and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will
BAIL No. 13005 of 2026
2
not misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned AGA for the State 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 witness, namely, Munna Yadav and
Manju Yadav 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 four 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 Jitendra @ Jeetu Savita, 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…