Allahabad High Court
HARIOM PANDEYversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
Because the FIR was filed belatedly and the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of Section 107 B.N.S., the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Hariom Pandey, who was arrested in a case originally registered under Section 103(1) of the B.N.S. and later converted to Section 107 B.N.S. for alleged abetment of suicide. The applicant claimed false implication, pointing out a five‑day delay in filing the FIR and the absence of any direct act of instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid. The court noted that the FIR was lodged belatedly and that the witness statements and investigation material did not establish the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 107. No criminal history and no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation were found. Consequently, the court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, subject to a personal bond, sureties and standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR defeats the prosecution's case under Section 107 B.N.S.
- Whether the applicant's alleged conduct constitutes abetment of suicide under Section 107 B.N.S.
- Whether bail should be granted in view of the facts and the likelihood of trial delay or evidence tampering
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103(1), 107
Subjects
- bail
- abetment of suicide
- delay in FIR
- false implication
- Section 107 B.N.S.
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31765 of 2026
Hariom Pandey
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Deepak Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri N.K. Sharma, 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. 0052 of 2026, under Section 107
B.N.S., Police Station- Karanda, District- Ghazipur, during the pendency of
the trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred in the
intervening night of 14/15.04.2026, whereas the first information report was
lodged on 19.04.2026 under Section 103(1) B.N.S. The delay in lodging the
first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. During the course of
investigation Section 103(1) B.N.S. was deleted and the case was converted
under Section 107 B.N.S. As per the post mortem report, the cause of death
is asphyxia due to ante mortem drowning. Further, as per the allegations in
the first information report, statements of the witnesses namely, Mrityunjay
Singh, Direndra Kumar Singh 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 mere allegation that the applicant
was involved in a love affair with the deceased and used to converse with
her over the mobile, in the absence of any positive act of instigation,
intentional aid, or compelling the deceased to commit suicide, do not
constitute the offence of abetment to suicide. The applicant is in jail since
19.04.2026 having no criminal history and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he
BAIL No. 31765 of 2026
2
will not misuse the liberty of bail.
4. Learned AGA 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, statements of
the witnesses namely, Mrityunjay Singh, Direndra Kumar Singh 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 five
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 Hariom Pandey, 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.
(Vivek Varma, J.)
September 23, 2026
Abhishek
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…