Allahabad High Court

SAHIL @ AKASHversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 29 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 108 B.N.S., and there was no material risk of tampering or intimidation, thereby justifying the grant of bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sahil @ Akash, who was arrested under Sections 115(2) CrPC and 108 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act for alleged abetment of suicide. The applicant contended that the post‑mortem report was inconclusive, the alleged video evidence was insufficient, and there was no positive act of instigation, relying on Supreme Court precedents. The State opposed bail but could not refute these submissions. The Court found that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 108 were not established, the applicant had been in custody for over two months, and there was no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the Court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the allegations under Section 108 B.N.S. constitute the offence of abetment to suicide.
Whether bail can be granted under Section 115(2) CrPC in the present circumstances.
Whether there is a likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or causing trial delay if released on bail.

Legislation cited

Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 108
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 115(2)

Subjects

bail
abetment of suicide
Section 108 B.N.S.
Criminal Procedure Code
evidence tampering
witness intimidation
presumption of innocence

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34867 of 2026

Sahil @ Akash
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pankaj Sharma, Prashant Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma,
learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 210 of 2026, under Sections 115(2), 108
B.N.S., Police Station Mandi Dhanaura, District Amroha during the
pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. According to the postmortem report,
the cause of death is uncertain. Viscera was preserved and sent for chemical
analysis. Further, as per the allegations in the first information report, the
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. The applicant, in no manner, abetted
the commission of suicide by the deceased. Mere allegations of assault by
the applicant and other accused 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, learned
counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex
Court in the cases of Nipun Aneja and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2017, decided on 03.10.2024, and Abhinav
Mohan Delkar v. The State of Maharashtra and others, Criminal
Appeal Nos. 2177-2185 of 2024, decided on 18.08.2025. Investigation has
been completed and the charge-sheet has been submitted. The applicant has
no criminal antecedents. The applicant is in jail since 14.07.2026 and if he is
BAIL No. 34867 of 2026
2

released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the
record, this Court prima facie finds that as per the allegations in the first
information report, the 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 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 remained confined for more than two months and after
submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial,
and 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, therefore, 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- Sahil @ Akash, involved in the aforesaid case, be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in
the like amount to the satisfaction of 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; and,

(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
SKT/-
(Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SHIVA KANT TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…