Allahabad High Court
JONIversusSTATE OF U.P THROUGH SECRETARY(HOME) U.P., LUCKNOW
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The applicant is entitled to bail as the prosecution has not established the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 108 B.N.S. and there is no material risk of interference with the trial.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Joni, the husband of a deceased woman, who was charged under Sections 85 and 108 of the B.N.S. Act and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act for alleged abetment of suicide. The FIR was lodged two days after the alleged incident and was later amended, with Section 103(1) being deleted and Section 108 added, while the post‑mortem could not determine the cause of death and toxicology revealed aluminium phosphide. The applicant argued that there was no direct act of instigation, that the FIR was belated, and that the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient to establish the ingredients of an offence under Section 108. The State opposed bail but could not rebut these points or show a risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Finding the FIR delay and lack of substantive proof, and noting the applicant’s clean record and two‑month pre‑trial detention, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail subject to standard conditions. Accordingly, the Court ordered his release on personal bond and sureties with conditions to appear in court, not tamper with evidence, and not pressurise witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the lack of direct evidence under Section 108 B.N.S. justify granting bail.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or delaying the trial if released on bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- abetment of suicide
- FIR delay
- toxicology report
- Section 108 B.N.S.
- evidence tampering
- witness intimidation
- clean criminal record
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1964 of 2026
Joni
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P Through Secretary(Home) U.P.,
Lucknow .....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Alok Kumar Chaubey, Rahul Mishra,
Sanjay Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, 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. 400 of 2025, under Sections 85, 108
B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Devband, District- Saharanpur,
during the pendency of the trial.
3. 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 23.06.2025, whereas the first information report
was lodged on 25.06.2025 under Sections 85, 103(1) BNS and 3/4 D.P. Act.
The delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution
case. During investigation, section 103(1) BNS was deleted and section 108
BNS was added. As per the postmortem report, cause of death could not be
ascertained. Viscera was preserved and sent for chemical and toxicological
examination. As per the viscera report, almunium phosphide poison was
found. Further, as per the allegations contained in the first information
report, the statements of independent witnesses, namely Smt. Sureshna, Smt.
Rekha, Rajat, Satendra 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. Mere allegations of assault or
harassment in the absence of any positive act of instigation or intentional aid
on the part of the applicant, would not constitute the offence of abetment to
suicide. 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
BAIL No. 1964 of 2026
2
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
07.07.2025 having no criminal antecedents and 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 the first information report has been lodged
belatedly. As per the allegations in the first information report, the
statements of independent witnesses, namely Smt. Sureshna, Smt. Rekha,
Rajat, Satendra 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 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 no criminal antecedents
and 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 enlarged on bail.
6. Let the applicant Joni, 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.
September 23, 2026
Manish Kr
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…