Allahabad High Court

ABHISHEK SINGH @ VITTU SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 18 March 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The applicant is entitled to be released on bail as the prosecution failed to demonstrate the existence of 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 Abhishek Singh, who was charged under Section 108 of the B.N.S. for alleged abetment of suicide. The applicant argued that the post‑mortem report showed death by antemortem hanging and that the facts disclosed in the FIR did not satisfy the ingredients of the offence. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant’s submissions. The Court, after a prima facie assessment, found no material to establish the charge, noted the applicant’s clean record and the lack of any risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation, and therefore granted bail subject to standard conditions. The order directed the applicant to furnish a personal bond and two sureties and to comply with conditions of non‑tampering, non‑pressurisation of witnesses, and regular appearance before the trial court.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant, charged under Section 108 B.N.S. for alleged abetment of suicide, is entitled to bail during the pendency of trial.
Whether the facts disclosed in the FIR and the post‑mortem report establish the ingredients of the offence under Section 108.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 108

Subjects

bail
Section 108
abetment of suicide
post‑mortem report
false implication
no criminal antecedent
conditions of bail

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9400 of 2026

Abhishek Singh @ Vittu Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Piyush Patel, Pradeep Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri N.K. Sharma, learned
A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 452 of 2025, under Section 108
B.N.S., Police Station- Ahirauli Bazar, District- Kushinagar during
pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. According to the postmortem report, cause
of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. It is next
contended that as per the allegations in the first information report and the
material collected during the course of the investigation, the necessary
ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S., are not
made out against the applicant. 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 judgements 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 other (Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-2185 of 2024) decided on
18.8.2025. The applicant is in jail since 16.2.2026 having no criminal
history. Investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed.
In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
BAIL No. 9400 of 2026
2

4. Learned AGA for the State 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 according to the postmortem report, cause of
death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. As per the
allegations in the first information report and the material collected during
the course of the investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the
offence under Section 108 B.N.S., are not made out against the applicant.
The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further the applicant has
presently remained confined for more than one 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 intimidate
the witness, 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, Abhishek Singh @ Vittu Singh involved in the
aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and
two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned
on the following conditions that:

i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;

iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial
court.

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.

(Vivek Varma,J.)
March 19, 2026
S.S.

Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…