Allahabad High Court

SALEEMversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 10 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out and there is no reasonable apprehension of interference with the trial.

Summary

Saleem, the father‑in‑law of a woman who died by hanging, was arrested under Section 108 of the B.N.S. for alleged abetment of suicide. He contended that he was falsely implicated, that the FIR and investigation did not establish any act of instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, and that he has no criminal antecedents. The prosecution could not rebut these claims, and the court noted that the post‑mortem confirmed asphyxia due to antemortem hanging and that no direct act could be attributed to the applicant. Considering the lack of prima facie evidence, the applicant’s two‑month confinement, and the absence of any risk of tampering or witness intimidation, the court held that bail was appropriate. Accordingly, Saleem was released on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence, not to pressure witnesses, and to appear before the trial court.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant can be granted bail in a case under Section 108 B.N.S. (abetment of suicide) given the alleged lack of evidentiary basis for abetment.
Whether the prosecution has demonstrated a reasonable apprehension that the applicant, if released, would tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, or otherwise obstruct the trial.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 108

Subjects

bail
abetment of suicide
Section 108
false implication
post‑mortem
parity
sureties
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30142 of 2026

Saleem
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mukesh Chandra Gupta, Shubham
Prakash Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Umesh Kumar

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Samiullah, Advocate
holding brief of Sri Umesh Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and
Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party. Perused the
record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 317 of 2026, under Section 108
B.N.S., Police Station- Partapur, District- Meerut during pendency of the
trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the father-in-law
of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
son of the applicant was married to the deceased in the year 2013. As per
the postmortem report, cause of death is asphyxia as a result of
antemortem hanging. Further, as per the allegations in the first
information report 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. Mere allegations of insult or
harassment, in 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 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
BAIL No. 30142 of 2026
2

Nos.2177-2185 of 2024) decided on 18.08.2025. Identically placed co-
accused Guddu alias Suleman and Smt. Zayadi have already been granted
bail by this Court vide orders dated 27.07.2026 and 21.08.2026 passed in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.23834 of 2026 and Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No.29617 of 2026, respectively. The applicant claims
parity. The applicant is in jail since 08.07.2026 having no criminal
antecedents and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said
liberty.

4. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State
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 postmortem report, cause of death
is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. Further, as per the
allegations in the first information report and the material collected during
the course of the investigation, the necessary 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.
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 merits of
the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged
on bail.

6. Let the applicant, Saleem 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;

iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial
court.
BAIL No. 30142 of 2026
3

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 11, 2026
Abhishek

Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…