Allahabad High Court
PARASversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The applicant is entitled to bail as the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Paras, accused under Section 108 of the B.N.S. for alleged abetment to suicide. The applicant argued that the post‑mortem report was inconclusive, the suicide note did not show any positive act of instigation, and that the essential ingredients of the offence were absent. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Nipun Aneja v. State of U.P. and Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra), the court found no proximate act attributable to the applicant and noted his clean criminal record. The State could not demonstrate a risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay. Consequently, the court held that the applicant was entitled to bail and ordered his release on personal bond with sureties and standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations against the applicant satisfy the elements of abetment to suicide under Section 108 B.N.S.
- Whether bail should be granted in view of the absence of positive act of instigation and the applicant's clean record
- Whether the State has shown any reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 108
Subjects
- bail
- abetment to suicide
- Section 108
- false implication
- post‑mortem report
- toxicological analysis
- no criminal antecedents
- court conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33253 of 2026
Paras
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mukul Yadav, Rajesh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the record.
2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0035 of 2025, under Section 108
B.N.S., Police Station- Chharra, District- Aligarh during pendency of the
trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. As per the postmortem report, the cause of
death could not be ascertained. Viscera was preserved and sent for
toxicological and chemical analysis. Viscera report is not part of the case
diary. Further, 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. The mere allegations contained in
the suicide note that the applicant provided poison to the deceased and
told him to "go and die", 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 24.06.2026 having
BAIL No. 33253 of 2026
2
no criminal history and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse
the said liberty.
5. Learned AGA for the state 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, 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 has no criminal antecedents and has
remained confined for more than two 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.
7. Let the applicant, Paras, 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.
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.
(Vivek Varma, J.)
September 18, 2026
Abhishek
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…