Allahabad High Court

VARISversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 29 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The applicant is entitled to be released on bail as the prosecution has not established the essential ingredients of the offence and there is no apprehension of tampering or intimidation.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Varis, who was arrested in connection with a case under Sections 108, 308(2) of the B.N.S. and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act for alleged abetment of suicide. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, pointing to a significant delay between the alleged incident on 05.06.2026 and the filing of the FIR on 11.07.2026, and argued that the prosecution had not established any act of instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid. The State opposed bail but could not rebut the claim of a belated FIR and the lack of essential ingredients of the offence. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged belatedly, the material on record did not satisfy the elements of Section 108, and there was no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, subject to standard conditions. The order directed the release of the applicant on personal bond and two sureties.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in lodging the FIR defeats the prosecution's case for abetment of suicide under Section 108 B.N.S.
Whether the applicant's conduct satisfies the elements of abetment of suicide under Section 108 B.N.S.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or delaying trial, warranting denial of bail.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 108, 308(2)
Information Technology Act — s. 66-D

Subjects

bail
abetment of suicide
false implication
delay in FIR
Section 108
Information Technology Act
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35010 of 2026

Varis
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arvind Singh
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. 76 of 2026, under Sections 108, 308(2)
B.N.S. and 66-D Information Technology Act, Police Station Beejpur,
District Sonbhadra during the pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have
occurred on 05.06.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on
11.07.2026. Inordinate delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to
the prosecution case. According to the postmortem report, the cause of death
is asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. Further, as per the allegations in the
first information report 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 harassment
in 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, 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
BAIL No. 35010 of 2026
2

completed and the charge-sheet has been submitted. The applicant has no
criminal antecedents. The applicant is in jail since 21.08.2026 and if he is
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 the first information report has been
lodged belatedly. As per the allegations in the first information report 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 remained confined for
more than a month 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- Varis, 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…