Allahabad High Court

SAURABH DUBEYversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 17 March 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as the essential ingredients of Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out and there is no risk of tampering or intimidation.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Saurabh Dubey, husband of a deceased woman, who was charged under Sections 85, 352, 108, 351(3) of the B.N.S., Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for alleged abetment of suicide. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, had initiated divorce proceedings on grounds of the deceased's alleged illicit relationship, and that the evidence – including photographs sent from his mobile – was not AI‑generated and there was no cyber‑cell report. The court examined the post‑mortem report indicating death by asphyxia due to hanging, the suicide note, and the material collected, finding that the essential ingredients of Section 108 B.N.S. were not satisfied and no proximate act could be attributed to the applicant. The State could not demonstrate a risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay. Consequently, the court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, ordering his release on personal bond and sureties with standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail pending trial for alleged abetment of suicide and related offences.
Whether the factual matrix satisfies the essential ingredients of Section 108 of the B.N.S. for abetment of suicide.
Whether there is a reasonable apprehension of the applicant tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or delaying the trial.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 108, 351(3), 352, 85
Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Information Technology Act — s. 67

Subjects

bail
abetment of suicide
false implication
divorce proceedings
Information Technology Act
Dowry Prohibition Act
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44587 of
2025

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aditi Srivastava, Kandarp
Srivastava, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Kamlesh Kumar
Dwivedi, Prashank Mishra

Court No. - 64

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by
Sri Kandarp Srivastava, counsel for the applicant, Sri Kamlesh
Kumar Dwivedi, counsel for the informant and Sri V.P. Tripathi,
learned AGA for the State. 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. 676 of 2025,
under Sections 85, 352, 108, 351(3) of B.N.S.; 67 of Information
Technology Act and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police
Station- Jagdishpura, District- Agra, during the pendency of the
trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the
husband of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. Prior to the alleged incident dated 04.10.2025, the
applicant had already instituted divorce proceeding under Section
13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Court of the Principal
Judge, Family Court, Agra registered as Suit No.2493 of 2025
(Sri Saurabh Dubey vs. Smt. Preetanjali Dubey and another). The
said petition was filed on the ground of alleged illicit relations of
the deceased with another person, thereby evidencing pre-existing
marital strains. On 03.10.2025, the deceased had also filed an
BAIL No. 44587 of 2025
2

application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. for registration of the
first information report against the applicant. It is contended that
the photographs sent by the applicant from his mobile number to
the family members of the deceased were not A.I. generated.
There is no adverse report of Cyber Cell. As per the postmortem
report, cause of death is asphyxia due to antemortem hanging.
Further, as per the allegations in the first information report,
suicide note and the material collected during the course of
investigation, the necessary 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. 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 09.10.2025 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 and 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 prior to the death of the
deceased, her relations with the applicant was not cordial.
Further, as per the allegations in the first information report,
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. The applicant has no criminal antecedents
and has remained confined for more than five months and after
submission of the charge sheet 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
BAIL No. 44587 of 2025
3

enlarged on bail.

6. Let the applicant Saurabh Dubey, 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.

March 18, 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…