Allahabad High Court

SANTOSH SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 13 May 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that the belated FIR and lack of evidentiary support for Section 108 B.N.S. negate any risk of tampering or intimidation, warranting the grant of bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Santosh Singh, accused under Sections 85 and 108 of the B.N.S. and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act for alleged dowry harassment leading to the suicide of his wife. The applicant contended that the FIR was lodged three days after the incident, that the post‑mortem report showed an uncertain cause of death, and that the prosecution had not established the mens rea or proximate act required under Section 108. The court noted the belated FIR, the absence of a viscera report in the case diary, and the lack of evidence linking the applicant to any instigation or conspiracy. It further observed that the applicant had been in custody for over five months, there was no danger of evidence tampering or witness intimidation, and he had no prior criminal record. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to personal bond, sureties, and conditions of appearance, non‑tampering, and non‑pressurisation of witnesses.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in lodging the FIR defeats the prosecution's case.
Whether the prosecution has established the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 108 B.N.S.
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, 85
D.P. Act — s. 3, 4

Subjects

bail
Section 108
suicide
dowry harassment
FIR delay
criminal procedure
presumption of innocence

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16363 of
2026

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mrityunjay Dwivedi, Pankaj
Kumar Rai
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. 309 of 2025,
under Sections 85, 108 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station
Didarganj, District Azamgarh during the pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
the husband of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in
the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on
16.11.2025, whereas the first information report was lodged on
19.11.2025. The delay in lodging the first information report is
fatal to the prosecution case. In brief, the allegations in the first
information report are that the applicant was married to the
deceased on 23.11.2016. The applicant and the other co-accused
used to harass the deceased, demand dowry and assault her
physically. Due to continuous cruelty and harassment, the
deceased consumed the poisonous substance. Further, as per the
postmortem report, the cause of death was uncertain and viscera
was preserved and sent for chemical analysis. Viscera report is
not part of the case diary. It is next contended that as per the
BAIL No. 16363 of 2026
2

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. Merely on the allegations
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 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 27.11.2025 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 the first
information report has been lodged belatedly. As per the
postmortem report, the cause of death was uncertain and viscera
was sent for chemical analysis. Viscera report is not part of the
case diary. 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. 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 five
months 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
BAIL No. 16363 of 2026
3

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- Santosh 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,

(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 14, 2026
SKT/-
(Vivek Varma,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…