Allahabad High Court
SUNIL MISHRA @ UDIT NARAYANversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sunil Mishra (alias Udit Narayan), who was charged under Section 108 of the B.N.S. for alleged abetment of suicide that occurred on 18 October 2024. The informant’s initial complaint on the same date made no allegation against the applicant, and a Section 175(4) application was filed only on 9 December 2024, with the FIR lodged on 17 January 2025, a delay the court deemed fatal to the prosecution. The post‑mortem report indicated death by hanging and the witness statements did not establish the essential ingredients of the offence. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court found no positive act of instigation by the applicant and noted his prolonged pre‑trial detention of over two months. Consequently, the court held that the applicant is entitled to bail, subject to standard conditions, and ordered his release on personal bond and sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in filing the Section 175(4) application and FIR defeats the prosecution’s case.
- Whether the ingredients of the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are established.
- Whether bail should be granted in view of the facts and the risk of tampering or intimidation.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- abetment of suicide
- delay in FIR
- Section 108
- Section 175(4)
- false implication
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29393 of 2026
Sunil Mishra @ Udit Narayan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vishwambhar Nath
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Abhishek Mishra, G.A., Vijay Kumar Mishra
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhishek Mishra, learned
counsel for the informant 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. 0008 of 2025, under Section 108
B.N.S., Police Station- Puramufati, District- Prayagraj, during the pendency
of the trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on
18.10.2024. On the same date, the informant submitted an application to the
concerned police station that her husband had committed suicide. The said
application does not contain any allegation against the applicant.
Subsequently, an application under Section 175(4) B.N.S.S. was filed before
the concerned Court on 09.12.2024 for registration of first information report
against the applicant. The first information report was lodged on 17.01.2025.
The delay in filing the application under Section 175(4) B.N.S.S. is fatal to
the prosecution case. As per the post mortem report, the cause of death is
asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. Further, as per the allegations in the
first information report, statements of witnesses namely, Dilip Raidas and
Prakash Raidas 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 demand of money or harassment, in
the absence of any positive act of instigation, intentional aid, on the part of
the applicant, would not constitute the offence of abetment of suicide. In
support of his submission, counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on
BAIL No. 29393 of 2026
2
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 no.2 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail
since 22.07.2026 and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the
said liberty.
4. Learned AGA for the State and learned 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 there is delay in filing the application under
Section 175(4) BNSS. As per the allegations in the first information report,
statements of witnesses namely, Dilip Raidas and Prakash Raidas and the
material collected during investigation, the essential ingredients to constitute
the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. 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 the merits of the case, I am of the
opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. Let the applicant, Sunil Mishra @ Udit Narayan, 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 29, 2026
Abhishek
(Vivek Varma, J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…