Allahabad High Court

MUKESH SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 13 May 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of Section 108 B.N.S.

Summary

Mukesh Singh applied for bail in a case under Section 108 of the B.N.S., alleging he abetted the suicide of a deceased who had taken a gold loan. The FIR was lodged on 2 April 2026 for an incident that allegedly occurred on 26 March 2026, creating a significant delay that the applicant argued undermines the prosecution's case. The court noted that the post‑mortem report indicated death by asphyxia due to drowning and that the FIR, suicide note, witness statement and other material did not establish the requisite mens rea or proximate act of abetment. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the bench found no evidence of instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid by the applicant, and observed his clean criminal record and confinement of over a month. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to personal bond, sureties and conditions against tampering with evidence, pressurising witnesses, and non‑appearance.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in lodging the FIR defeats the prosecution's case under Section 108 B.N.S.
Whether the facts alleged constitute the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 108 B.N.S.
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail pending trial

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 108

Subjects

bail
Section 108
abetment of suicide
delay in FIR
false implication
no criminal antecedents
sureties

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16406 of 2026

Mukesh Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dewendra Singh, Suresh Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mrigendra Singh, Raj Kumar
Tripathi

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anupam Anand, learned
Brief Holder for the State and Sri Raj Kumar Tripathi, counsel for the
informant. Perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 56 of 2026, under Section 108
B.N.S., Police Station- Kydganj, District- Prayagraj during 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
26.3.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on 2.4.2026. The
inordinate delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the
prosecution case. In brief, the allegations in the first information report
are, the deceased had taken a gold loan from IIFL finance limited
company through the applicant. The applicant continuously used to
threaten the deceased and had been demanding money regarding his share
of the loan amount. Due to continuous harassment caused by the
applicant, the deceased remained under severe stress and depression.
Consequently, on 26.3.2026, he committee suicide by jumping into a
river. Prior to the death, the deceased requested the applicant to help him
to clear the gold loan. To this, the applicant replied 'go and die'. It is
contended that merely on the allegations of harassment, the applicant has
been implicated. The alleged utterance of words 'go and die' is not sufficient
BAIL No. 16406 of 2026
2

to constitute the alleged offence. As per the postmortem report, cause of
death is asphyxia due to antemortem drowning. Further, as per the
allegations in the first information report, the alleged suicide note,
statement of the witness namely, Manish and the material collected during
the course of the investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the
offence under Section 108 B.N.S., are not made out against the applicant.
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
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 other (Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-2185 of 2024)
decided on 18.8.2025. The applicant is in jail since 3.4.2026 having no
criminal history. Investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has
been filed. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said
liberty.

4. Learned Brief Holder for the State and counsel for the informant have
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 lodging the first
information report is fatal to the prosecution case. As per the postmortem
report, cause of death is asphyxia due to antemortem drowning. Further,
as per the allegations in the first information report, the alleged suicide
note, statement of the witness namely, Manish and the material collected
during the course of the investigation, the necessary ingredients to
constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S., are not made out against
the applicant. 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 has no criminal
antecedents. The applicant has presently 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
BAIL No. 16406 of 2026
3

the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence
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.

6. Let the applicant, Mukesh Singh involved in the aforesaid case be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each
of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following
conditions that:

i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;

iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial
court.

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.

(Vivek Varma,J.)
May 14, 2026
S.S.

Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…