Allahabad High Court

PAYAL AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 16 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The Court held that the applicants are entitled to bail as the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence and there is no material risk of interference with the trial.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Payal and Urmila, who were accused under IPC sections 351(3) and 352 and Section 108 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act for alleged abetment to suicide. The applicants argued that the post‑mortem report could not determine the cause of death and that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 108 were not established. The State opposed bail but could not refute the claim that there was no direct act of instigation or conspiracy by the applicants. The Court found that the evidence did not satisfy the criteria for abetment, the applicants had no criminal antecedents, and there was no risk of tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses. Consequently, the Court ordered that the applicants be released on bail subject to personal bond, sureties and standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 108 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act are made out against the applicants
Whether the applicants are entitled to bail despite being charged under IPC sections 351(3) and 352 and Section 108 B.N.S.
Whether there is a likelihood of the applicants tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if released on bail

Legislation cited

Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 108
Indian Penal Code — s. 351(3), 352

Subjects

bail
abetment to suicide
IPC 351
IPC 352
B.N.S. 108
post‑mortem inconclusive
presumption of innocence
sureties

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32617 of 2026

Payal And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dharmendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned
A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ashutosh Singh, counsel for the informant.
Perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 215 of 2026, under Sections 351(3),
352, 108 B.N.S., Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Muzaffar Nagar
during pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant no.1 is the wife and
applicant no.2 is the mother-in-law of the deceased and has been falsely
implicated in the present case. As per the postmortem report, cause of death
could not be ascertained. Viscera was preserved and sent for chemical
analysis. Viscera report is not part of case diary. Further, as per the
allegations in the first information report and the material collected during
the course of the investigation, the essential ingredients to constitute the
offence under Section 108 B.N.S., are not made out against the applicants.
Mere allegations of extending threats, insults or harassment, in absence of
any positive act of instigation, intentional aid, compelling the deceased to
commit suicide, do not constitute the offence of abetment to suicide. In
support of his submission, counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on
the judgements 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 other (Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-2185 of 2024)
decided on 18.8.2025. The applicants are in jail since 13.5.2026 having no
criminal history. Investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has
been filed. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
BAIL No. 32617 of 2026
2

4. Learned A.G.A. for the State and 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 postmortem report, cause of death
could not be ascertained. Viscera was preserved and sent for chemical
analysis. Viscera report is not part of case diary. Further, as per the
allegations in the first information report and the material collected during
the course of the investigation, the essential ingredients to constitute the
offence under Section 108 B.N.S., are not made out against the applicants.
There is no direct act attributable to the applicants that could be construed as
instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid to the commission of suicide. The
applicants have no criminal antecedents. The applicants has presently
remained confined for more than four months 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 applicants, if enlarged on bail, would
either tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witness, without
commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants
are entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. Let the applicants, Payal and Urmila involved in the aforesaid case be
released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of
the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following
conditions that:

i. the applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

ii. the applicants shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;

iii. the applicants shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

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 17, 2026
S.S.
(Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…