Allahabad High Court

VASUDHAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 10 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

In the absence of any direct act of instigation and given the delay in the FIR and lack of evidentiary support, the applicant is entitled to bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Vasudha, the step‑mother of a deceased person, who was charged under Section 108 of the B.N.S. for alleged abetment of suicide. The applicant argued that the FIR was lodged nine days after the death, indicating a fatal delay, and that the post‑mortem showed death by antemortem hanging with no evidence of her instigating the act. The State could not demonstrate any direct act of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid by the applicant, nor any risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that require a positive act for abetment, the Court found the prosecution case prima facie weak. Consequently, the Court ordered that Vasudha be released on bail subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite being charged under Section 108 B.N.S. for alleged abetment of suicide
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and lack of direct evidence negate the elements of 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
abetment of suicide
Section 108
delay in FIR
false implication
post‑mortem report
evidence tampering
witness intimidation

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14924 of 2026

Vasudha
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shivam Verma, Sujeet
Kumar Yadav, Vijay
Bahadur
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N. K. Sharma,
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. 12 of 2026,
under Section 108 B.N.S., Police Station- Kant, District-
Shahjahanpur, during the pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is the
step mother of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in
the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on
31.12.2025, whereas the first information report was lodged on
10.01.2026. The inordinate delay in lodging the first
information report is fatal to the prosecution case. As per the
postmortem report, cause of death is asphyxia due to
antemortem hanging. Further according to the first information
report, the statement of the brother of the deceased namely,
Lavkush 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. Mere allegations of
harassment or assault, in absence of any positive act of
instigation, intentional aid, on the part of the applicant, would
BAIL No. 14924 of 2026
2

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 25.03.2026 having no
criminal antecedents and in case, she is enlarged on bail, she
will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. 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 postmortem
report, cause of death is asphyxia due to antemortem hanging.
Further, as per the allegations in the first information report,
the statement of the brother of the deceased namely, Lavkush
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 direct act attributable to the applicant
that could be construed as instigation, conspiracy or intentional
aid to the commission of suicide. Moreover, the applicant is a
lady and has remained confined for more than five 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, Vasudha involved in the aforesaid case be
released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two
sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court
BAIL No. 14924 of 2026
3

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.

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
Abhishek

(Vivek Varma, J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…