Allahabad High Court
KAMLAUTI CHAUHAN @ KAMLAWATIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The Court held that the essential ingredients of Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out and the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Kamlauti Chauhan, the wife of a deceased man alleged to have committed suicide by hanging. The applicant was charged under Section 108 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for alleged abetment to suicide, based on a suicide note and other investigative material. Counsel argued that the post‑mortem report and lack of any positive act of instigation meant the essential ingredients of the offence were not established, citing Supreme Court precedents. The State opposed bail but could not rebut these submissions. Finding that no proximate act of instigation or conspiracy could be attributed to the applicant and that there was no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation, the Court granted bail with standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the facts alleged in the FIR and suicide note satisfy the ingredients of an offence under Section 108 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail pending trial
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 108
Subjects
- bail
- abetment to suicide
- Section 108
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
- suicide note
- evidence tampering
- trial delay
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34908 of 2026
Kamlauti Chauhan @ Kamlawati
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Raja Sahani, Richesh Mishra
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anupam Anand, learned Brief
Holder for the State, and Sri Richesh Mishra, learned counsel for the
informant.
2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 300 of 2026, under Section 108 of
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Gorakhnath, District
Gorakhpur, during the pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is the wife of
the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. According
to the postmortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia due to antemortem
injury (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 harassment or the naming of a person in a
suicide note, 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 submissions,
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 04.08.2026 having no criminal history and in case
BAIL No. 34908 of 2026
2
she is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned Brief Holder for the State and learned 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 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 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 is a lady and has remained confined for more than one and half
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- Kamlauti Chauhan @ Kamlawati, 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
SKT/- (Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHIVA KANT TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…