Allahabad High Court
VIMLA DEVIversusSTATE 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 therefore granted bail to the applicant.
Summary
Vimla Devi, the mother‑in‑law of a deceased woman, applied for bail in a case originally filed under Sections 85, 80(2) of the B.N.S. Act and the Dowry Prohibition Act, which was later amended to charge her under Section 108 and Section 92 of the B.N.S. Act for alleged abetment to suicide. The applicant contended that she was falsely implicated, that the post‑mortem showed death by asphyxia due to hanging, and that there was no positive act of instigation or aid on her part, citing independent witness statements and lack of video evidence. The State opposed bail but could not rebut these submissions. The Court held that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 108 were not established, noted the applicant’s clean record and prolonged pre‑trial detention, and found no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the Court ordered her release on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions of appearance, non‑tampering, and non‑pressurisation of witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations against Vimla Devi satisfy the legal elements of abetment to suicide under Section 108 of the B.N.S. Act.
- Whether bail should be granted in view of the evidence, the applicant’s personal circumstances, and the risk of tampering or intimidation.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. Act — s. 108, 80(2), 85, 92
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- abetment to suicide
- Section 108
- false implication
- evidence
- pre‑trial detention
- Uttar Pradesh
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2212 of 2026
Vimla Devi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Harish Chandra, Ram Chandra Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anoop Kumar Nirmal, G.A., Rajesh
Maurya
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajesh Maurya, counsel for the
informant as well as 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. 287 of 2025, under Sections 108, 92
B.N.S., Police Station- Manjhanpur, District- Kaushambi, during the
pendency of the trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is mother-in-law of
the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Initially, the
first information report was lodged under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and 3/4
of Dowry Prohibition Act. During investigation, aforesaid sections were
deleted and the case was converted under Section 108, 92 B.N.S. As per the
postmortem report, cause of death is asphyxia due to antemortem hanging.
Further, as per the allegations in the first information report, the alleged
video recordings, the statements of independent witnesses, namely Smt.
Mohini Devi, Smt. Rati Devi, Smt. Benduli Devi 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 making taunting remarks, in the absence of any positive
act of instigation, intentional aid, or proximate conduct compelling the
deceased to commit suicide, do 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.
BAIL No. 2212 of 2026
2
The State of Maharashtra and others (Criminal Appeal Nos.2177-2185 of
2024) decided on 18.08.2025. The applicant is in jail since 24.9.2025 having
no criminal antecedents and in case, she is enlarged on bail, she will not
misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned AGA 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 as per the allegations in the first information
report, the alleged video recordings, the statements of independent
witnesses, namely Smt. Mohini Devi, Smt. Rati Devi, Smt. Benduli Devi
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 is a lady and has no criminal
antecedents and has remained confined for almost a year 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 Vimla Devi, 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.
September 23, 2026
Manish Kr
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…