Allahabad High Court

SAVITAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as the prosecution failed to establish the offence and there is no risk of interference with the trial.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Criminal Procedure Code for an accused, Savita, who was charged under Section 108 of the Uttar Pradesh B.N.S. Act for allegedly abetting the suicide of her husband. The applicant argued that the FIR was lodged six months after the alleged incident, that the post‑mortem report showed an uncertain cause of death with organochlorine insecticide present, and that the prosecution had not established the requisite mens rea or proximate act. The court noted the belated FIR, the lack of evidence linking the applicant to any instigation or conspiracy, and her clean criminal record. It found no material risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Section 483 CrPC in a case under Section 108 of the Uttar Pradesh B.N.S. Act.
Whether the prosecution has established the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 108, including mens rea and proximate act.
Whether the delay in filing the FIR defeats the prosecution's case.
Whether there is a likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or causing trial delay if released on bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 483
Uttar Pradesh B.N.S. Act — s. 108

Subjects

bail
Section 108
suicide
false implication
delay in FIR
post‑mortem report
mens rea
proximate act
evidence tampering
witness intimidation

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15240 of 2026

Savita
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mayank Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Copy of postmortem report as well as viscera report of the
deceased produced by learned AGA, is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P.Tripathi,
learned AGA for the State-respondent.

3. The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been
filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime
No. 248 of 2025, under Section 108 BNS, Police Station
Charwa, District Kaushambi during the pendency of trial.

4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the wife
of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present
case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 20.06.2025,
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. As per the postmortem report, the
cause of death is uncertain. Viscera was preserved and sent for
chemical analysis. As per the viscera report organochloro
insecticide poison was present. Further, as per the allegations in
the first information report and the material collected during
investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the
BAIL No. 15240 of 2026
2

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 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 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 23.03.2026 having no criminal history and in case
she is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the said liberty.

5. Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the
record, this Court prima facie finds that the first information
report was lodged belatedly. As per the allegations in the first
information report 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 is a lady and has no
criminal antecedents. Further, the applicant has remained
confined for more than one month 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.

7. Let the applicant Savita, involved in the aforesaid case be
BAIL No. 15240 of 2026
3

released on bail on his 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; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

8. 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 6, 2026
Lbm/-

(Vivek Varma,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…