Allahabad High Court

PINTU ALIAS VIKAS AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 15 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that the applicants are entitled to bail as the essential ingredients of the offence are not made out and there is no apprehension of tampering or intimidation.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Pintu alias Vikas and Ravindra Singh in a case under Section 108 of the B.N.S., alleging abetment to suicide. The applicants, related to the deceased, claimed they were falsely implicated and that the post‑mortem showed death by asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. The court examined the FIR, investigation material and found no direct act of instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid by the applicants, and noted their clean criminal record. It also observed that the investigation was complete, a charge‑sheet had been filed, and there was no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the court granted bail with standard conditions of personal bond, sureties, and compliance with trial dates.

Issues considered

Whether the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. (abetment to suicide) are established against the applicants
Whether bail should be granted in view of the applicants' lack of criminal antecedents and absence of risk of tampering or intimidation

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 108

Subjects

bail
abetment to suicide
Section 108
postmortem
no criminal antecedent
evidence tampering
witness intimidation

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33044 of 2026

Pintu Alias Vikas And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raghuraj Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vineet Singh Parmar

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 Vineet Singh Parmar,
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. 194 of 2026,
under Section 108 B.N.S., Police Station- Frinds Colony,
District- Etawah during pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant no.1 is
brother-in-law and the applicant no.2 is the father-in-law of the
deceased have 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 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 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
BAIL No. 33044 of 2026
2

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
29.7.2026 having no criminal history. Investigation has been
completed and charge-sheet has been filed. In case they are
enlarged on bail, they will not misuse the said liberty.

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 is asphyxia due to antemortem hanging.
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 have presently 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 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, Pintu @ Vikas and Ravindra Singh
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:
BAIL No. 33044 of 2026
3

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 16, 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…