Allahabad High Court

HEMLATAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 4 May 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The applicant is entitled to bail as the prosecution has not made out a prima facie case under Section 108 B.N.S. and there is no material risk of interference with the trial.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Hemlata, who was arrested under Section 108 of the B.N.S. for alleged abetment of suicide. The applicant argued that the FIR was filed five days after the alleged incident, showing a fatal delay, and that the investigation had been re‑characterised from Sections 103(1) and 61(2) to Section 108, with no evidence of mens rea or a proximate act linking her to the death. The court noted the post‑mortem findings, the informant’s statement, and a friend’s testimony that the deceased had taken his own life due to emotional stress, concluding that the prosecution’s case was not prima facie. Hemlata had no prior criminal record and had already been in custody for over three months, with no risk of tampering or witness intimidation. Accordingly, the court held that she was entitled to bail, subject to standard conditions of personal bond, sureties, and compliance with trial dates. The bail was ordered to be granted on the stipulated conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case under Section 108 B.N.S. for abetment of suicide.
The impact of the delay between the alleged incident and filing of the FIR on the bail decision.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or delaying the trial if released on bail.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 103(1), 108, 483, 61(2)

Subjects

bail
Section 108
abetment of suicide
delay in FIR
prima facie case
criminal antecedents
trial delay
evidence tampering

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14523 of 2026

Hemlata
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Raj Pandey, Shubham Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ram Kesh

Court No. - 64

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Kesh, counsel for the
informant and Sri Anupam Anand, learned brief holder for the State-
respondent.

2. The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with
a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 13 of 2026,
under Section 108 BNS, Police Station Badalpur, District Gautam Budh
Nagar during the pendency of trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on
14.01.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on 19.01.2026.
The inordinate delay in filing the first information report is fatal to the
prosecution case. Initially, the first information report was lodged under
Sections 103(1) and 61(2) BNS. During the course of investigation, the case
was converted into Section 108 BNS. According to the postmortem report,
the cause of death is craniocerebral damage and its complications. Viscera
was preserved and sent for chemical analysis. Further, as per the allegations
in the first information report, statement of the informant and the material
collected during investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the
offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. Placing reliance upon
the statement of the friend of the deceased namely Puneet Kumar it is
contended that the deceased was in relationship with the applicant and has
committed suicide due to emotional stress. The applicant, in no manner,
BAIL No. 14523 of 2026
2

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 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, Abhinav
Mohan Delkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others (Criminal
Appeal Nos. 2177-2185 of 2024) decided on 18.08.2025 and
Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda & ors Vs. State of Gujrat (Criminal
Appeal No. Nil of 2024, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7957 of 2024)
decided on 10.12.2024. The applicant is in jail since 20.01.2026 having no
criminal history and in case she is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the
said liberty.

4. Learned brief holder for the State and the counsel for the informant have
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, statement of the informant and the material collected during
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. The applicant has
no criminal antecedents. Further, the applicant 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 the merits of the case, I am of the
opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. Let the applicant Hemlata, involved in the aforesaid case be released on
bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions
that she:
BAIL No. 14523 of 2026
3

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(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.

(Vivek Varma,J.)
May 5, 2026
Lbm/-

Digitally signed by :-
LAL BAHADUR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…