Allahabad High Court
SURENDRA KUMAR ALIAS MOOLAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Surendra Kumar alias Moola in a case under Section 107 of the B.N.S., alleging abetment to suicide. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, pointing out a three‑day delay in lodging the FIR and the lack of any direct act of instigation or intentional aid. The State opposed bail but could not refute the claim that the essential ingredients of the offence were not established. The Court observed that the FIR was belated, the witness statements and material did not support the charge, and the applicant had already been detained for seven months without a prospect of speedy trial. Consequently, the Court granted bail subject to personal bond, sureties and conditions to appear, not tamper with evidence, and not pressurize witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR defeats the prosecution's case under Section 107 B.N.S.
- Whether the applicant's alleged relationship with the deceased amounts to abetment to suicide under Section 107 B.N.S.
- Whether there is a reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay that justifies denial of bail
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail after prolonged pre‑trial detention
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 107, 108
Subjects
- bail
- abetment to suicide
- false implication
- delay in FIR
- pre‑trial detention
- Section 107 B.N.S.
- court conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30530 of 2026
Surendra Kumar Alias Moola
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Kumar Gautam
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj Gautam, learned
A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.
2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 35 of 2026, under Section 107 B.N.S.,
Police Station Nagina, District Bijnor during the pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have
occurred on 04.02.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on
07.02.2026. Delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the
prosecution case. Initially, the first information report was lodged under
Section 108 B.N.S. During investigation, the case has been converted under
Section 107 B.N.S. Further, as per the allegations in the first information
report, the statement of the witnesses namely Anil and Sanjeev Kumar and
the material collected during the course of investigation, the essential
ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 107 B.N.S. are not made
out. The applicant, in no manner, abetted the commission of suicide by the
deceased. Mere allegations of a love relationship between the applicant and
the deceased in absence of any positive act of instigation or intentional aid
on the part of the applicant would not constitute the offence of abetment to
suicide. Investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been
submitted. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant is in jail
since 07.02.2026 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said
liberty.
BAIL No. 30530 of 2026
2
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of 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, the
statement of the witnesses namely Anil and Sanjeev Kumar and the material
collected during the course of investigation, the essential ingredients to
constitute the offence under Section 107 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 has remained confined for almost seven months and
after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of
trial, and 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, therefore, 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- Surendra Kumar alias Moola, involved in the aforesaid
case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties
each in the like amount to the satisfaction of 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; and,
(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 8, 2026
SKT/- (Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHIVA KANT TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…