Allahabad High Court

SHIVANGI VISHWAKARMAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 29 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The Court held that the essential ingredients of Section 108 were not established and therefore granted bail to the applicant.

Summary

Shivangi Vishwakarma was arrested in connection with a death alleged to be a suicide, and charged under Sections 108 and 351(3) of the B.N.S. The applicant contended that the post‑mortem showed death by hanging and that there was no evidence of abetment, arguing that the alleged suicide note and other material did not satisfy the ingredients of Section 108. The State opposed bail but could not rebut the claim that no direct act of instigation or intentional aid could be attributed to the applicant. The Court, after examining the FIR, the post‑mortem report and the submissions, held that the case against the applicant was prima facie weak and that there was no risk of tampering with evidence or witness intimidation. Consequently, the Court ordered that the applicant be released on bail subject to a personal bond and two sureties, with standard conditions of appearance, non‑tampering and non‑pressurisation of witnesses.

Issues considered

Whether the ingredients of offence under Section 108 B.N.S. (abetment of suicide) are made out against the applicant.
Whether bail can be granted under Section 483 B.N.S. in view of the facts and the risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 108, 351(3), 483

Subjects

bail
abetment of suicide
Section 108
criminal procedure
false implication
presumption of innocence

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33487 of 2026

Shivangi Vishwakarma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashok Kumar Singh, Shesh Mani
Vishwakarma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Saroj Yadav, Advocate assisted by Sri Ashok Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manvendra Pratap Singh, learned
counsel for the informant as well as Sri Anupam Anand, learned Brief
Holder for the State-opposite party and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application, under Section 483 B.N.S.S., has been filed
with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0122 of
2026, under Sections 108, 351(3) of the B.N.S., Police Station- George
Town, District- Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. As per the post mortem report the cause of
death is asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. Further, as per 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. Mere allegations
of blackmailing, extending threats or harassment, in absence of any positive
act of instigation, intentional aid, on the part of the applicant, would not
constitute the offence of abetment of 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 30.07.2026 having no criminal antecedents and in
case, she is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the said liberty.
BAIL No. 33487 of 2026
2

4. Learned AGA for the state has 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 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 direct act attributable to the
applicant that could be construed as instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid
to the commission of suicide. Moreover, the applicant is a lady and has
remained confined for almost two 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, Shivangi Vishwakarma, 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 she:
(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.
September 30, 2026
Abhishek
(Vivek Varma, J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…