Allahabad High Court
GEETA DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence and there is no material risk of interference with the trial.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Geeta Devi, the sister‑in‑law of a deceased person, who was charged under Sections 108 and 85 of the B.N.S. for alleged abetment of suicide. The applicant argued that the FIR was lodged two days after the alleged incident and that the post‑mortem report could not establish cause of death, rendering the prosecution case weak. The State opposed bail but could not rebut the claim that no direct act of instigation or conspiracy by the applicant was shown. The Court noted the belated FIR, lack of essential ingredients for the offence, the applicant’s clean record, and the prolonged pre‑trial detention, and found no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the Court ordered the release of the applicant on bail subject to a personal bond and two sureties with standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR defeats the prosecution’s case under Section 108 B.N.S.
- Whether the essential ingredients of the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 108 B.N.S. are established against the applicant.
- 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, 85
Subjects
- bail
- abetment of suicide
- Section 108 B.N.S.
- delay in FIR
- false implication
- no criminal antecedents
- sureties
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30231 of 2026
Geeta Devi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arun Kumar Bajpai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard counsel for the applicant 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.98 of 2026, under Sections 108, 85
B.N.S., Police Station- Jafarganj, District- Fatehpur, during the pendency of
the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the sister-
in-law (Jethani) of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 02.06.2026,
whereas the first information report was lodged on 04.06.2026. The delay in
lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. As
per the postmortem report, cause of death could not be ascertained. Viscera,
blood, stomach content, abdominal fat were preserved and sent for chemical
analysis, concentration, examination and expert opinion. Viscera report is
not part of the case diary. Further, as per the allegations in the first
information report 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 assault or
harassment 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 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 Nos.2177-2185 of
2024) decided on 18.08.2025. The applicant is in jail since
BAIL No. 30231 of 2026
2
06.06.2026 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 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 the first information report has been lodged
belatedly. As per the allegations in the first information report 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 no criminal antecedents.
She 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 Geeta 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 11, 2026
Manish Kr
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…