Allahabad High Court
JONYversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The court held that, in the absence of any direct act of abetment and with no risk of tampering or intimidation, the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
Jony, the husband of a deceased woman, was arrested under Sections 85, 105 and 108 of the B.N.S. for alleged abetment of suicide. He contended that the FIR was lodged five days after the incident, the charge of Section 105 was later dropped, and the evidence, including the post‑mortem report and a doctor’s statement, did not establish the essential ingredients of the offence. The State opposed bail but could not rebut these points. The court found that no direct act of instigation or conspiracy could be attributed to Jony, there was no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation, and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond and sureties with standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite being charged under Sections 85, 105 and 108 of the B.N.S. for alleged abetment of suicide
- Whether the prosecution has established the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 108 B.N.S.
- Whether there is a likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or delaying the trial if released on bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 105, 108, 85
Subjects
- bail
- abetment of suicide
- Section 108 B.N.S.
- false implication
- delay in FIR
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31718 of 2026
Jony
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Hukum Singh, Puneet Bhadauria
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Aditya Vardhan Singh, G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, 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. 269 of 2026, under Sections 85, 108
B.N.S., Police Station Jewar, District Gautam Buddha Nagar during the
pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the
husband of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present
case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 22.07.2026, whereas the
first information report was lodged on 27.07.2026 under Sections 85 and 105
B.N.S. Delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the
prosecution case. During investigation, Section 105 B.N.S. was deleted and
Section 108 B.N.S. was added. According to the postmortem report, the
cause of death was kept pending till receipt of chemical analysis report of
viscera. Further, as per the allegations in the first information report, the
statement of Dr. Krishna Kumar Yadav 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. The applicant, in no manner,
abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. Mere allegations of
matrimonial discord between the applicant and the deceased, coupled with
allegations of extending threats, 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 to suicide. In support of his
submission, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the
BAIL No. 31718 of 2026
2
judgement of the Apex Court in the cases of Nipun Aneja and others v.
State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2017, decided on
03.10.2024, and Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. The State of Maharashtra
and others, Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-2185 of 2024, decided on
18.08.2025. Investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been
submitted. The applicant is in jail since 28.07.2026 having no criminal
history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
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 as per the allegations in the first
information report, the statement of the Dr. Krishna Kumar Yadav 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 remained confined for almost two
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- Jony, 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 29, 2026
SKT/-
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHIVA KANT TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…