Allahabad High Court
SHUBHAM KUMAR KASHYAPversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The Court held that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out and the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court of Allahabad considered a bail application filed by Shubham Kumar Kashyap in a case under Section 108 of the B.N.S., alleging abetment of suicide of three persons. The applicant contended that the deaths were suicides resulting from personal debt and that the prosecution evidence – post‑mortem report, informant statement under Section 180, and a purported suicide note – did not establish the mens rea or act required for abetment. The State opposed bail but could not rebut the claim that no proximate act attributable to the applicant existed. After examining the record, the Court held that the essential ingredients of the offence were not made out and that the applicant, having been in custody for over two months, posed no risk of tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the Court ordered his release on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties and standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the facts alleged constitute an offence under Section 108 B.N.S.
- Whether the prosecution has established the mens rea and proximate act required for abetment of suicide
- Whether bail should be granted in view of the evidence and any risk of tampering or witness intimidation
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- abetment of suicide
- Section 108
- false implication
- prima facie
- sureties
- court conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16503 of
2026
Shubham Kumar Kashyap
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manvendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, 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. 77 of 2026, under
Section 108 B.N.S., Police Station- Kotwali, District- Fatehpur,
during the pendency of the trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. As per the postmortem
reports of the three deceased, cause of death is 'shock as a result
of ante mortem cut throat injury and viscera, blood sample and
stomach content were preserved for chemical analysis
concentration and expert opinion, nail clipping and nail scraping
wee preserved for foreign body traces'. Placing reliance upon the
statement of the informant recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. it
is contended that the deceased had taken loan from the applicant
and other co-accused and was unable to repay the same, on
account of which he committed suicide. Further, as per the
allegations in the first information report, the statement of the
informant recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., the alleged
BAIL No. 16503 of 2026
2
suicide note of the deceased 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
three 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, counsel for the
applicant has placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Mahendra Awase vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.221 of 2025) decided on
17.01.2025, 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 11.3.2026 having no
criminal history. In case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not
misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned AGA for the State 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 as per the allegations in
the first information report, the statement of the informant
recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., the alleged suicide note of
the deceased 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 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
BAIL No. 16503 of 2026
3
enlarged on bail.
6. Let the applicant Shubham Kumar Kashyap, 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:
(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 14, 2026
S.S.
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…