Allahabad High Court

PRITIversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 10 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that the essential ingredients of Section 108 IPC are not made out and the applicant is entitled to bail.

Summary

The High Court of Allahabad considered a bail application filed by Priti in a criminal case under Section 108 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging abetment of suicide. The prosecution’s case rested on alleged illicit relations with a co‑accused and marital discord, while the post‑mortem report showed death by asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. The court examined the FIR, the son’s statement, and the post‑mortem, finding no proximate act of instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid by the applicant. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Nipun Aneja v. State of UP and Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra), it concluded that the essential ingredients of Section 108 are not satisfied. Given the applicant’s clean record and the absence of any risk of tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses, the court granted bail with standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the factual allegations satisfy the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 108 of the Indian Penal Code (abetment of suicide).
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or delaying the trial if released on bail.
Whether bail should be granted in view of the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents and the nature of the accusations.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 108

Subjects

bail
abetment of suicide
Section 108 IPC
false implication
post‑mortem report
high court
Allahabad
criminal antecedents

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32299 of 2026

Priti
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Darshan Gupta, Mehul Khare, Saurabh
Kesarwani
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Copy of the postmortem report as well as the statement of the son of the
deceased, produced by Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A., are taken on
record.
2. Heard counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-opposite
party. Perused the material available on record.

3. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 228 of 2026, under Section 108 B.N.S.,
Police Station- Pahasu, District- Bulandshahr, during the pendency of the
trial.

4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant 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, the statement of the son of the deceased 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 that the applicant was having illicit relations with co-
accused Sonu and there was matrimonial discord between the applicant and
the deceased, in the absence of any positive act of instigation, intentional
aid, or proximate conduct compelling the deceased to commit suicide, would
not by themselves constitute the offence of abetment to 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)
BAIL No. 32299 of 2026
2

decided on 18.08.2025. The applicant is in jail since 20.7.2026 having no
criminal antecedents and in case, she is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse
the said liberty.

5. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily
dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

6. 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 proximate or 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 one and half month
and 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.

7. Let the applicant Priti, 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.

8. 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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…