Allahabad High Court
SHABNAM @ SUMANversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 108 B.N.S., and therefore the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Shabnam @ Suman, who was charged under Sections 108, 352 and 351(2) of the B.N.S. for alleged abetment of suicide. The applicant contended that the death was a suicide by hanging, with no evidence of her instigating or aiding the act, and cited Supreme Court precedents dismissing similar accusations. The prosecution could not demonstrate the mens rea or proximate act required under Section 108, nor any risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. The court, noting the applicant's lack of criminal antecedents and prolonged pre‑trial detention, held that the essential ingredients of the offence were not established. Consequently, the court granted bail on personal bond and two sureties, subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations under Section 108 B.N.S. constitute a prima facie case of abetment of suicide.
- 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, 351(2), 352
Subjects
- bail
- Section 108
- abetment of suicide
- prima facie case
- criminal procedure
- sureties
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15168 of 2026
Shabnam @ Suman
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Niklank Kumar Jain
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rishi Kesh Malviya
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Rishi Kesh Malviya, counsel for
the informant as well as Sri Anupam Anand, 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. 236 of 2025, under Sections 108, 352,
351(2) B.N.S., Police Station- Nidhauli Kalan, District- Etah, during the
pendency of the trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. As per the postmortem report, cause of death
is asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. Further, as per the allegations in the
first information report, alleged video recording, the suicide note 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. Merely on the allegation of harassment, the applicant has been
implicated. 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 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.
Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph-2 of the
BAIL No. 15168 of 2026
2
supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 21.11.2025 and in
case, she is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned AGA and 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, alleged video recording, the 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 proximate or
direct act attributable to the applicant that could be construed as instigation,
conspiracy or intentional aid to the commission of suicide. Further, the
applicant is a lady and has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant
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 Shabnam @ Suman, 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 she:
(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.
May 5, 2026
Manish Kr
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…