BALESHWAR RAMversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
         CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29090 of 2026

Baleshwar Ram
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)          : Jitendra Singh, Sunil Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)     : Amit Shukla, G.A., Kshitij Tiwari

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manoj Gautam, learned
A.G.A. for the State and Sri Kshitij Tiwari, counsel for the informant.
Perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 225 of 2026, under Section 108 B.N.S.,
Police Station- Alinagar, District- Chandauli during pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. Initially, the first information report was
lodged under Section 125 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act. During the course of
investigation, the aforesaid sections were deleted and case was converted
under Section 108 B.N.S. It is next contended that the marriage of the
applicant's son with the informant's daughter was fixed for 28.4.2026.
However, due to unavoidable circumstances, the family members of the
applicant decided to cancel the marriage. The applicant did not demand any
dowry from the informant. Further, as per the allegations in the first
information report, alleged suicide note, video recording and the material
collected during the course of the investigation, the essential ingredients to
constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S., are not made out against the
applicant. Mere naming a person in the suicide note or making allegations
against such persons in a video recording, in absence of any positive act of
instigation, intentional aid, on the part of the applicant, would not by
themselves constitute the offence of abetment to suicide. In support of his
                                                           BAIL No. 29090 of 2026
                                 2


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 case of the applicant is distinguishable from that of co-
accused Vijay Prakash. The applicant is in jail since 9.7.2026 having no
criminal history. Investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has
been filed. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. 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, alleged suicide note, video recording and the material collected
during the course of the investigation, the essential ingredients to constitute
the offence under Section 108 B.N.S., are not made out against the applicant.
There is no direct act attributable to the applicant that could be construed as
instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid to the commission of suicide. The
applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant has presently 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 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, Baleshwar Ram involved in the aforesaid case be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of
the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following
conditions that:

i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;
                                                                                               BAIL No. 29090 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    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.)
                                    September 28, 2026
                                    S.S.




Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad