Allahabad High Court

SMT. NEETUversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 30 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The Court held that, on the material before it, the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 108 B.N.S. were not made out and therefore the applicant is entitled to bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Smt. Neetu, who was arrested in connection with a case under Section 108 of the B.N.S. alleging abetment of suicide. The applicant contended that she was falsely implicated, noting the absence of any obscene material, a dying declaration, or any positive act of instigation on her part. The prosecution could not demonstrate that the essential ingredients of the offence were satisfied and failed to show any risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that the allegations were prima facie insufficient to justify continued detention. Consequently, the Court granted bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions of appearance, non‑tampering, and non‑pressurisation of witnesses.

Issues considered

Whether the allegations under Section 108 B.N.S. constitute a prima facie case of abetment of suicide sufficient to deny bail.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or delaying the trial if released on bail.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 108, 109, 115(2), 131, 191(2), 351(2), 69

Subjects

bail
abetment of suicide
Section 108 B.N.S.
prima facie case
evidence tampering
witness intimidation
false implication

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22096 of 2026

Smt. Neetu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sushil Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj Gautam, 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. 120 of 2026, under Section 108 B.N.S.,
Police Station- Ahmadgarh, District- Bulandshahr, during the 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
25.04.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on 26.04.2026
under Sections 191(2), 69, 115(2), 351(2), 109, 131 B.N.S. No obscene
video or photograph of the deceased has been collected by the investigating
officer. Further, as per the allegations contained in the first information
report, the alleged dying declaration 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. Mere
allegations of hurling abuses or harassing the deceased, 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 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
. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph-11 of the
supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 11.5.2026 and in case,
she is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the said liberty.
BAIL No. 22096 of 2026
2

4. Learned AGA 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 contained in the first
information report, the alleged dying declaration 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 direct act attributable to the applicant that could be
construed as instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid to the commission of
suicide. Moreover, the applicant is a lady and has remained confined for
more than three months and after submission of the charge sheet 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 Smt. Neetu, 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 she:

(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.

October 1, 2026
Manish Kr

(Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…