Allahabad High Court

SUBHASH CHANDRAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 17 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

Since the allegations do not establish the essential ingredients of abetment to suicide under Section 108 B.N.S. and there is no risk of tampering or intimidation, the applicant is entitled to bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Subhash Chandra, who was accused under Section 108 of the B.N.S. for alleged abetment to suicide following the death of his wife. The applicant argued that the FIR and investigation did not establish any act of instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, and relied on Supreme Court precedents that require positive acts for abetment. The State opposed bail but could not refute the claim that the essential ingredients of the offence were absent. The Court found that no direct act could be attributed to the applicant, he had no criminal antecedents, and there was no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the Court ordered his release on bail subject to personal bond, sureties and standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the allegations in the FIR satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. (abetment to suicide).
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or delaying trial, warranting denial of bail.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 108

Subjects

bail
abetment to suicide
Section 108 B.N.S.
criminal procedure
witness tampering
sureties

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33301 of 2026

Subhash Chandra
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Suphal Shukla, Shivendra Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Perused the record.
2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No.128 of 2026, under Section 108
B.N.S., Police Station- Charwa, District- Kaushambi, during pendency of
the trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is the husband of
the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
According to the postmortem report, cause of death is asphyxia due to
ante mortem hanging. Further, 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. Mere allegations of assault, hurling
abuses or harassment, in the absence of any positive act of instigation,
intentional aid on the part of the applicant, do not 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) decided on 18.08.2025. The
applicant is in jail since 29.05.2026 having no criminal antecedents and in
case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
4. Learned AGA for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could
BAIL No. 33301 of 2026
2

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 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 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 three 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 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- Subhash Chandra, 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.
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 18, 2026
Abhishek

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…