AJAY SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

     CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15986 of 2026

Ajay Singh
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P.
                                                                  .....Opposite
                                                                        Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                    :   Sushil Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)               :   G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma,
learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 348 of 2023, under Section 306 I.P.C.,
Police Station Crossing Republic, District Ghaziabad during the pendency of
the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. Initially, the first information report
was lodged under Section 376D I.P.C. The applicant was granted bail by the
Special Judge (EC Act)/ Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad
vide order dated 06.01.2024 passed in Bail Application No. 7482 of 2023.
During the course of investigation, the case was converted into Section 306
I.P.C. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death could not be
ascertained and the viscera was preserved. As per the viscera report,
organochloro insecticide poison was found. Further, as per the statement of
aunt of the deceased namely Premila Devi, when the deceased was brought
to the hospital, she was in a critical condition. In broken words and gesture,
the deceased indicated that the applicant had done wrong to her and that he
should not be forgiven. Another witness, namely, Shalu, who was also
working with the deceased, stated that the deceased had informed her that
the applicant had done wrong to her. It is contended that taking into account
the said statement and the other material collected during the course of
investigation, the essential ingredients to constitute the offence under
Section 306 I.P.C. are not made out. The applicant, in no manner, abetted the
                                                            BAIL No. 15986 of 2026
                                  2


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 said
provision. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant has
placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the cases of Nipun
Aneja and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 654 of
2017, decided on 03.10.2024, and Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. The State of
Maharashtra and others, Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-2185 of 2024,
decided on 18.08.2025. Investigation has been completed and the charge-
sheet has been submitted. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The
applicant is in jail since 26.03.2026 and if he is released on bail, he will not
misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the
record, this Court prima facie finds that as per the viscera report,
organochloro insecticide poison was found. As per the statements of the
witnesses Pramila Devi and Shalu 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. Moreover, 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,
and 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, therefore, 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- Ajay Singh, involved in the aforesaid case, be released
on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of 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,
                                                                                            BAIL No. 15986 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    (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 12, 2026
                                    SKT/-                                                     (Vivek Varma,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SHIVA KANT TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad