SEEMAversusSTATE OF U.P.

    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S
              482 BNSS No. - 10002 of 2026

Seema
                                                 .....Applicant(s)
                             Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)              :   Himanshu Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)         :   G.A.

Court No. - 72
            HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A
for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No. 114 of 2026, under Sections 85,
108 BNS, Police Station Tamkuhiraj, District Kushinagar with
a prayer to grant her anticipatory bail.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant
is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. She has nothing to do with the alleged offence in
spite of that the police are trying to arrest the applicant. The
first information report was lodged after two days. No plausible
explanation has been offered by the first informant in respect of
delay in filing the first information report. There is no
allegation or direct or indirect evidence against the applicant
that the deceased was instigated or abetted to commit suicide
by the applicant. The first information report was lodged due to
ulterior motive. The applicant is sister-in-law (Jethani) of the
deceased. The applicant is not named in the first information
report. The alleged incident is said to have taken place on
14.5.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on
16.5.2026. The delay in lodging the first information report has
                                                 NABAIL No. 10002 of 2026
                           2


not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. It is
admitted case of the prosecution that the marriage between the
deceased and co-accused Kamlesh was solemnized in the year
2015. There is no allegation of demand of dowry or harassment
against the applicant. It is alleged in the first information report
that the husband of the deceased was an alcoholic and he used
to commit marpeet with the deceased. Several meetings were
held between the parties. General allegation has been levelled
that on account of harassment by the applicant, the deceased
committed suicide on 14.5.2026. Infact, the deceased
committed suicide on account of matrimonial dispute with her
husband. The husband of the deceased has already been
arrested by the police and he has been languishing in jail,
therefore, the case of the applicant is distinguishable from the
case of the husband of the deceased. The applicant has no
criminal antecedent to her credit.

4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant
that the arrest of the applicant would cause an irreparable
hardship to the family. The deceased was under mental stress
and she committed suicide under depression without any
provocation or instigation by the applicant. The essential
ingredients of abetment as required under law are completely
missing in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that the applicant undertakes to cooperate
during investigation and trial and shall appear as and when
required by the Investigating Agency or the Court concerned. It
has also been stated that, in case the applicant is granted
anticipatory bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and
shall cooperate with the investigation, and shall abide by all the
conditions that may be imposed by the Court.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the
application for anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute
the factual aspect.

6. I have heard the rival submissions of both sides and perused
                                                 NABAIL No. 10002 of 2026
                           3


the record.

7. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
held that while considering an application for grant of
anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the
offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing
the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence
including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice,
such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that
Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as
the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the
applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether
to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is
a matter of discretion.

8. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another,
(2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court
has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our
constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused
during investigation arises when custodial investigation
becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a
possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may
abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is
lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A
distinction must be made between the existence of the power to
arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made
routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and
self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no
reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey
summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the
investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to
arrest the accused.

9. By a long line of judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
reiterated that in order to make out an offence under Section
306 IPC / 108 BNS, specific abetment as contemplated by
                                                 NABAIL No. 10002 of 2026
                           4


Section 107 IPC / 45 BNS on the part of the accused with an
intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as
a result of that abetment is required. It has been further held
that the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or to abet the
deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306
IPC / 108 BNS [See Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of
Gujarat and Another (2010) 8 SCC 628]. Further, the alleged
harassment meted out should have left the victim with no other
alternative but to put an end to his / her life and that in cases of
abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect
acts of incitement to commit suicide [See Amalendu Pal alias
Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707 and M.
Mohan vs. State (2011) 3 SCC 626 and Ramesh Kumar vs.
State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618].

10. These principles have been reiterated recently by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Mahendra Awase vs. The State of Madhya
Pradesh, 2025 INSC 76.

11. The case of the applicant is squarely covered by the
aforesaid judgments.

12. Considering the settled principle of law regarding
anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending
facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any
opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

13. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed
with following directions:-

(i) In the event of arrest of the applicant-Seema involved in
aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail till the
conclusion of trial, on her furnishing a personal bond of
Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station
concerned or to the court concerned;
                                                                                       NABAIL No. 10002 of 2026
                                                                  5


                                        (ii) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating
                                        Officer during investigation and shall report to the
                                        Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of
                                        conducting investigation;

                                        (iii) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
                                        inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
                                        the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such
                                        facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

                                        (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous
                                        permission of the Court.

                                        14. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public
                                        Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant
                                        is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of
                                        anticipatory bail granted to the applicant, before the concerned
                                        court.

                                        September 24, 2026
                                        Lalit Shukla

                                                                               (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
LALIT KUMAR SHUKLA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad