Allahabad High Court

REENAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 28 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence and there is no apprehension of tampering or intimidation.

Summary

Reena, the sister‑in‑law of a deceased person, was charged under Section 108 of the B.N.S. for alleged abetment to suicide. She filed a bail application, contending that the FIR was lodged belatedly, the post‑mortem report was inconclusive, and there was no suicide note or material linking her to the alleged offence. The State opposed bail but could not refute these points. The court observed that the essential ingredients of the offence were not established, noted the applicant’s lack of criminal history and the two‑month pre‑trial detention, and found no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions of non‑tampering, non‑pressurisation, and regular court appearances.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant can be granted bail in a case of alleged abetment to suicide under Section 108 B.N.S. given the delay in filing the FIR and lack of substantive evidence.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if released on bail.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 108

Subjects

bail
abetment to suicide
Section 108
delay in FIR
post‑mortem report
no criminal antecedents
sureties
court conditions

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34619 of 2026

Reena
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kinshuk Shukla, Utkarsha
Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anupam
Anand, learned Brief Holder for the State. Perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to
enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 325 of 2026,
under Section 108 B.N.S., Police Station- Cantt, District- Bareilly
during pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the
sister-in-law of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in
the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on
30.6.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on
3.7.2026. The delay in lodging the first information report is fatal
to the prosecution case. As per the postmortem report, cause of
death could not be ascertained. Viscera was preserved and sent
for chemical analysis. Viscera report is not part of case diary.
Further, as per the allegations in the first information report, the
alleged suicide note 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 assault or harassment, in absence
BAIL No. 34619 of 2026
2

of any positive act of instigation, intentional aid, on the part of
the applicant, would not by themselves 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 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
4.7.2026 having no criminal history. Investigation has been
completed and charge-sheet has been filed. In case she is
enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned Brief Holder for the State 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 allegations in the
first information report, the alleged suicide note 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. The applicant is a lady and
has no criminal antecedents. 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
presently remained confined for more than 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 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, Reena involved in the aforesaid case be
released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two
BAIL No. 34619 of 2026
3

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;

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.

September 29, 2026
S.S.

(Vivek Varma,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…