Allahabad High Court

SANJANAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 13 May 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of Section 108 B.N.S., and therefore the applicant is entitled to bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sanjana, the wife of a deceased man, who was charged under Section 108 of the B.N.S. for allegedly abetting his suicide. Sanjana contended that she was falsely implicated, pointing out a two‑day delay in filing the FIR and a post‑mortem report indicating death by cardio‑respiratory failure, with no chemical analysis presented. The prosecution could not demonstrate the requisite mens rea or any direct act by Sanjana that would satisfy the elements of Section 108. The Court noted the absence of any material linking her to the alleged conspiracy, her clean criminal record, and the prolonged pre‑trial detention of over eight months. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that the prosecution case was prima facie weak and that there was no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the Court ordered her release on bail subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in lodging the FIR defeats the prosecution's case under Section 108 B.N.S.
Whether the evidence on record establishes the mens rea and proximate act required for an offence under Section 108 B.N.S.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if released on bail

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 108

Subjects

bail
Section 108
suicide
delay in FIR
mens rea
evidence tampering
witness intimidation
post‑mortem report

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16452 of 2026

Sanjana
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Raj Pandey, Shubham 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 Anupam Anand,
learned Brief Holder for the State. Perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 212 of 2025, under Section 108
B.N.S., Police Station- Narsaina District- Bulandshahar during pendency
of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the wife of the
deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident
is alleged to have occurred on 15.8.2025, whereas the first information
report was lodged on 17.8.2025. The delay in lodging the first information
report is fatal to the prosecution case. In brief, the allegations in the first
information report are, the applicant was married to the deceased on
27.5.2024. The applicant continuously harassed the deceased on account
of money and property. The deceased died due to poisoning. The
applicant and other co-accused are responsible for his death. It is
contended that merely on the allegations of harassment, the applicant has
been implicated. As per the postmortem report, cause of death is 'cardio
respiratory failure'. Viscera was preserved and sent for chemical analysis.
Viscera report is not part of case diary. Further, as per the allegations in
the first information report 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,
BAIL No. 16452 of 2026
2

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 17.8.2025 having no criminal
history. Investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed.
In case she is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned Brief Holder for the State 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 delay in lodging the first information report
is fatal to the prosecution case. As per the postmortem report, cause of
death is 'cardio respiratory failure'. Viscera was preserved and sent for
chemical analysis. Viscera report is not part of case diary. Further, as per
the allegations in the first information report and the material collected
during the course of 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 is a lady and has no criminal
antecedents. The applicant has presently remained confined for more than
eight months 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 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, Sanjana involved in the aforesaid case be released
on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like
amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions
BAIL No. 16452 of 2026
3

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…