Allahabad High Court
PRAMOD KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be released on bail as the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case of abetment of suicide and there is no material risk of interference with the trial.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Pramod Kumar, who was arrested in connection with a death alleged to be a suicide and charged under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 108 (abetment of suicide). The applicant contended that the FIR was lodged two days after the incident, that the post‑mortem indicated ante‑mortem hanging, and that the investigation failed to establish any mens rea or proximate act on his part. The prosecution could not rebut these points, and the court noted the belated FIR, lack of evidence of instigation or conspiracy, and the applicant’s clean record. The court held that there was no risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay, and therefore the applicant was entitled to bail. Consequently, the court ordered his release on bail subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the lack of evidence of mens rea justify granting bail to the accused.
- Whether the accused poses a risk of tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or causing trial delay.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 108, 115(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 329(3), 333, 3(5), 351(3), 352
Subjects
- bail
- abetment of suicide
- FIR delay
- mens rea
- Section 108 IPC
- criminal procedure
- presumption of innocence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16378 of 2026
Pramod Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Javed Khan, Subuhi Naseem
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned
A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.
3. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 61 of 2026, under Sections 108, 3(5),
190, 191(2), 352, 351(3), 191(3) B.N.S., Police Station Junawai, District
Sambhal during the pendency of the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have
occurred on 09.03.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on
11.03.2026. The delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the
prosecution case. Initially, the first information report was lodged under
Sections 103(1), 3(5), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 333, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 329(3)
B.N.S. During the course of investigation, Sections 103(1), 329(3), 115(2),
333 B.N.S. were deleted and Section 108 B.N.S. was added. As per the
postmortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia due to ante mortem
hanging. Further, as per the allegations in the first information report, the
statements of the witnesses namely Ganga Sahai, Pokhraj, Om Verma,
Pappu and Raju 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,
humiliation and assault by the applicant and co-accused persons, the
BAIL No. 16378 of 2026
2
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 is in jail since 9.03.2026 having no
criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said
liberty.
5. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the
prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions
from the record.
6. 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. According to the postmortem report, the cause of death is
asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. As per the allegations in the first
information report, the statements of the witnesses namely Ganga Sahai,
Pokhraj, Om Verma, Pappu and Raju 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 two 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 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- Pramod Kumar, 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
BAIL No. 16378 of 2026
3
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.
(Vivek Varma,J.)
May 14, 2026
S.S.
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…