Allahabad High Court
GIRJESH KUMAR @ MUNNAversusSTATE 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 ingredients of the offence and there is no apprehension of tampering or intimidation.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Girjesh Kumar, husband of a deceased woman, who was charged under Sections 108 and 85 of the B.N.S. for alleged abetment of suicide. The applicant argued that the death was due to antemortem hanging and that there was no positive act of instigation or intentional aid on his part, relying on Supreme Court precedents. The State opposed bail but could not refute the claim that the essential ingredients of the offence were absent. The Court found that no direct act could be attributed to the applicant, noted his clean record and four‑month confinement, and saw no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the Court ordered his release on bail subject to a personal bond and sureties with standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations in the FIR satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 108 B.N.S. (abetment of suicide).
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or delaying trial warranting denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 108, 85
Subjects
- bail
- abetment of suicide
- Section 108
- criminal procedure
- presumption of innocence
- evidence tampering
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31560 of 2026
Girjesh Kumar @ Munna
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dinesh Mishra, Jagadish Prasad Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard Sri Dinesh Mishra, learned 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.249 of 2026, under Sections 108, 85
B.N.S., Police Station- Kokhraj, District- Kaushambi, during the pendency
of the trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the
deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the
postmortem report, cause of death is asphyxia due to antemortem hanging.
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 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 9.5.2026 having no criminal antecedents and in case, he is enlarged on
bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily
dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
BAIL No. 31560 of 2026
2
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 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 has no criminal antecedents and has
remained confined for almost four 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 Girjesh Kumar @ Munna, 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 8, 2026
Manish Kr
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…