Allahabad High Court
SHAHGAZversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out and there is no reasonable apprehension of tampering or intimidation.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Shahgaz, husband of a deceased woman, who was charged under Sections 85, 108 and 61(2) of the B.N.S. for alleged abetment of suicide. The applicant argued that the FIR was lodged nine days after the alleged incident, that the delay undermined the prosecution's case, and that the investigation had removed Section 103(1) while adding Section 108, with no direct act of instigation by him. The State opposed bail but could not rebut the claim that the essential ingredients of the offence were absent and that the applicant had no criminal record. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Nipun Aneja v. State of UP and Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra), the Court found no reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the Court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR defeats the prosecution's case for abetment of suicide.
- Whether the applicant's alleged conduct satisfies the elements of offence under Section 108 B.N.S.
- Whether the State has shown a reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering or witness intimidation to deny bail.
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail given his lack of criminal antecedents and the nature of the charges.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103(1), 108, 61(2), 85
Subjects
- bail
- abetment of suicide
- FIR delay
- Section 108 B.N.S.
- criminal procedure
- presumption of innocence
- evidence tampering
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34578 of 2026
Shahgaz
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Avinash Chandra Srivastava, Pranjal
Chaudhari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.P. Tripathi, 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. 511 of 2026, under Sections 85, 108,
61(2) B.N.S., Police Station- Kanker Kheda, District- Meerut during
pendency of the trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the
deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is
alleged to have occurred on 16.6.2026, whereas the first information report
was lodged on 25.6.2026. The delay in lodging the first information report is
fatal to the prosecution case. During investigation, section 103(1) B.N,S.
was deleted and Section 108 B.N.S. was added. As per the postmortem
report, cause of death is 'hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy and pulmonary
edema following antemortem hanging (delayed death)'. Further, as per the
allegations in the first information report, statements of the witnesses
namely, Amir, Razi Khan and Kallo 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 of matrimonial discord between the applicant and the deceased,
harassment or assault, 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
BAIL No. 34578 of 2026
2
the applicant has placed reliance on the judgements 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 other (Criminal
Appeal Nos. 2177-2185 of 2024) decided on 18.8.2025. The applicant is in
jail since 25.6.2026 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. Further, as per the allegations in the first information report,
statements of the witnesses namely, Amir, Razi Khan and Kallo 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. 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 three 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, Shahgaz 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 conditions
that:
i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;
BAIL No. 34578 of 2026
3
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 29, 2026
S.S.
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…