OMKAR VERMAversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
         CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33415 of 2026

Omkar Verma
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Akhilendra Yadav, Jai Prakash Shukla,
                                Vishal Srivastava
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.

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 81 of 2026, under Section 108 B.N.S.,
Police Station- Dauki, District- Agra during pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on
25.4.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on 30.4.2026
under Section 103(1) B.N.S. The delay in lodging the first information report
is fatal to the prosecution case. During the course of investigation, the case
was converted under Section 108 B.N.S. As per the postmortem report,
cause of death is asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. Further, as per the
allegations in the first information report, the statements of independent
witnesses namely, Irfan, Siyaram, Mohar Pal Singh and Sani 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 applicant. Mere allegations that the Wagon-R vehicle of the
deceased was hit by a Vikram Auto, and that the deceased thereafter was
involved in a fight, in absence of any positive act of instigation, intentional
aid, on the part of the applicant would not constitute the offence of abetment
to suicide In support of his submission, counsel for the applicant has placed
reliance on the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of
                                                         BAIL No. 33415 of 2026
                                  2


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. At this stage, there is no corroborative
evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant has been
implicated only on the basis of suspicion. The applicant is in jail since
2.7.2026 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.

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 the first information report has been lodged
belatedly. As per the postmortem report, cause of death is asphyxia due to
antemortem hanging. As per the postmortem report, cause of death is
asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. Further, as per the allegations in the
first information report, the statements of independent witnesses namely,
Irfan, Siyaram, Mohar Pal Singh and Sani 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 applicant. At
this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the
offence. There is no direct act attributable to the applicant that could be
construed as instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid to the commission of
suicide. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant has
presently remained confined for more than two 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 intimidate the witness, without
commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant
is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. Let the applicant, Omkar Verma involved in the aforesaid case be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of
the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following
                                                                                               BAIL No. 33415 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    conditions that:

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

                                    ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;

                                    iii. the applicant 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.



                                                                                                 (Vivek Varma,J.)
                                    September 21, 2026
                                    S.S.




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