Allahabad High Court

VISHAL RAJPOOTversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 11 May 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that the prosecution case was prima facie weak due to the delay and lack of essential ingredients for Section 108, and therefore the applicant is entitled to bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Vishal Rajpoot, who was arrested in connection with a case under Section 108 of the Indian Penal Code (abetment of suicide). The applicant alleged that the FIR was lodged with an inordinate delay—first information report filed on 14 December 2025 despite the alleged incident occurring on 24 July 2025—and that no obscene video or direct act linking him to the alleged suicide was found. The prosecution’s case, based on statements of two witnesses, did not establish the mens rea or proximate act required for Section 108, and the applicant had no prior criminal record. The court held that the delay in filing the Section 173(4) application was fatal to the prosecution and that the essential ingredients of the offence were not made out. Consequently, the court granted bail, imposing a personal bond and sureties with conditions to appear in court, not tamper with evidence, and not pressurise witnesses.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in filing the Section 173(4) application defeats the prosecution’s case.
Whether the material on record establishes the elements of abetment of suicide under Section 108.
Whether bail should be granted to the accused given the nature of the allegations and his lack of criminal antecedents.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 108, 173(4), 238, 316(2), 61(2)(a)

Subjects

bail
abetment of suicide
Section 108
Section 173(4)
delay in FIR
false implication
no evidence
criminal antecedents

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16078 of 2026

Vishal Rajpoot
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : G.S.Chauhan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard counsel for the applicant and 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. 497 of 2025, under Section 108 B.N.S.,
Police Station- Nawabad, District- Jhansi, during the pendency of the 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
24.7.2025, whereas the application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. for
registration of the first information report was filed on 01.9.2025. The first
information report was lodged subsequently on 14.12.2025 under Sections
103(1), 238, 61(2)(a) and 316(2) B.N.S. The inordinate delay in filing the
application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. is fatal to the prosecution case.
During the course of investigation, on the basis of statement of the
witnesses, namely Sumit Sahu and Shiv Varma, the case was converted
under Section 108 B.N.S. The allegations in the first information report, in
brief, are that the deceased had been living in a live-in relationship with the
applicant for the past two years. The deceased used to visit the informant and
her family members daily and informed that the applicant had trapped her in
his love affair, established physical relations, secretly made obscene video
and used to threaten to make them viral and defame her, despite the fact that
the applicant was already married. The first information report further states
that on 23.7.2025 at about 11.00 a.m. the deceased informed that the
applicant had called her on phone and was pressurizing her to establish
physical relations with his friends. When the deceased refused, she was
threatened and assaulted. On the next day, the informant came to know that
the deceased had allegedly committed suicide by hanging herself from a
BAIL No. 16078 of 2026
2

ceiling fan with a dupatta. It is contended that no indecent photograph/video
of the deceased was recovered by the Investigating Officer. As per the
postmortem report, cause of death is asphyxia due to antemortem hanging.
Further, as per the allegations in the first information report 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. The
applicant, in no manner, 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 said 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.
The applicant is in jail since 09.04.2026 having no criminal antecedents and
in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned AGA 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 the inordinate delay in filing the application
under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. is fatal to the prosecution case. As per the
allegations in the first information report, statement of the witnesses, namely
Sumit Sahu and Shiv Varma 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. No obscene photograph/video of the
deceased was recovered by the Investigating Officer. Except, the statement
of the mother of the deceased, 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 no
criminal antecedents and has remained confined for more than one month
and 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 Vishal Rajpoot, 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 he:
BAIL No. 16078 of 2026
3

(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 12, 2026
Manish Kr
(Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…