Allahabad High Court

CHANDRAPAL SINGH YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 22 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of the offence and there is no material risk of interference with the trial.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Chandrapal Singh Yadav, who was arrested in connection with a suicide case under Sections 108, 308(5) and 351(3) of the B.N.S. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, citing a post‑mortem report indicating death by asphyxia due to hanging and arguing that the FIR, video evidence and investigation material did not establish the essential ingredients of abetment to suicide. The State opposed bail but could not demonstrate any proximate act of instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid by the applicant, nor any risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. The Court, after a prima‑facie assessment, found that the allegations did not satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 108 and noted the applicant’s clean record and prolonged pre‑trial detention. Consequently, the Court ordered the release of the applicant on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties and conditions of appearance, non‑tampering with evidence and non‑pressurisation of witnesses.

Issues considered

Whether the allegations against the applicant satisfy the essential ingredients of offence under Section 108 of the B.N.S.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses or delaying the trial if released on bail
Whether bail should be granted in view of the applicant’s clean record and length of pre‑trial detention

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 108, 308(5), 351(3)

Subjects

bail
abetment of suicide
Section 108
false implication
post‑mortem
pre‑trial detention
conditions of bail

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3464 of 2026

Chandrapal Singh Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ray Sahab Yadav, Vikas Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj Gautam, learned AGA for
the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 211 of 2025, under Section 108, 308(5),
351(3) B.N.S., Police Station- Babina, District- Jhansi, during the pendency
of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. As per the postmortem report, cause of death
is asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. Further, as per the allegations in the
first information report, alleged video recording 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
extending threats or harassment, in the absence of any positive act of
instigation, intentional aid, or proximate conduct compelling the deceased to
commit suicide, 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 21.8.2025 having no
criminal antecedents and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse
the said liberty.

4. Learned AGA for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
BAIL No. 3464 of 2026
2

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, alleged video recording 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 proximate or 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 one year and a 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 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 Chandrapal Singh Yadav, 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.

September 23, 2026
Manish Kr

(Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…