Allahabad High Court

KAMLESH CHAUHANversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 10 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The applicant is entitled to bail as the prosecution has not made out a prima facie case of abetment to suicide under Section 108.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Kamlesh Chauhan, who was accused under Section 108 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for alleged abetment to suicide of a deceased individual. The applicant, a sister of the second wife of the deceased, argued that the death was a hanging suicide and that there was no positive act of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid on her part, citing the post‑mortem report and the suicide note. The State opposed bail but could not demonstrate that the essential ingredients of the offence were established or that the applicant posed a risk of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses. The Court held that, on a prima facie basis, the allegations did not satisfy the requirements of Section 108 and that no reasonable apprehension of interference existed. Consequently, the Court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to a personal bond, sureties, and conditions of appearance, non‑tampering, and non‑pressurisation of witnesses.

Issues considered

Whether the facts alleged in the FIR and the suicide note satisfy the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 108 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Whether bail should be granted in the absence of a prima facie case and any risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation.

Legislation cited

Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 108

Subjects

bail
abetment to suicide
Section 108
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
prima facie case
evidence tampering
witness intimidation

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32387 of 2026

Kamlesh Chauhan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Raja Sahani, Richesh Mishra

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Richesh Mishra, learned
counsel for the informant and Sri V.P. Triapathi, learned AGA for the
State.

2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge
the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 300 of 2026, under Section 108 of
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Gorakhnath, District
Gorakhpur, during the pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is the
sister of the second wife of the deceased and has been falsely implicated
in the present case. According to the post mortem report, the cause of
death is asphyxia due to antemortem injury (hanging). Further, as per the
first information report, the alleged suicide note 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 harassment or the naming of a person in a suicide note, in the absence
of any positive act of instigation, intentional aid, or proximate conduct
compelling the deceased to commit suicide, do not constitute the offence
of abetment to suicide. In support of his submissions, 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 10.08.2026 having no criminal history and in
BAIL No. 32387 of 2026
2

case, she is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned AGA for the state and learned counsel for the informant have
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 as per the allegations in the first information
report, the alleged suicide note 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 remained confined for
more than a 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.

6. Let the applicant, Kamlesh Chauhan, 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.
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 11, 2026
Abhishek

Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…