Allahabad High Court

AMIT KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 28 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

Holding

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, finding that the applicant does not merit arrest pending trial.

Summary

The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Amit Kumar, who was implicated under Section 108 of the B.N.S. for alleged abetment of suicide. The applicant argued that the FIR was lodged 24 days after the incident, that there was no direct or indirect evidence linking him to the deceased’s suicide, and that the allegations were motivated by personal vendetta. The State opposed the bail but did not dispute the factual background. Relying on Supreme Court precedents concerning the criteria for granting anticipatory bail and the specific requirements for establishing abetment of suicide, the Court found that the applicant’s role was minimal and that the case warranted bail. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail with a personal bond and several conditions, while reserving the right to cancel bail for any misuse.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to Amit Kumar under Section 108 B.N.S. in view of the alleged delay in FIR and lack of evidence of abetment
Whether the applicant’s alleged role satisfies the legal criteria for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC/108 B.N.S.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 108, 45
Indian Penal Code — s. 107, 306

Subjects

anticipatory bail
suicide abetment
Section 108 B.N.S.
delay in FIR
personal liberty
bail conditions

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 10141 of 2026

Amit Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Birendra Singh Khokher
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. 144 of 2026, under Section 108 of B.N.S., Police Station
- Ankur Vihar, District Ghaziabad, with a prayer to grant him anticipatory
bail.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
He 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 24 days. The alleged incident had taken place on 21.05.2026 and the
F.I.R. was lodged on 14.06.2026. 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 brother-in-law of the deceased. As
per the post-mortem report, cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia as
a result of ante-mortem hanging. The marriage between the sister of the
applicant and the deceased was solemnized 22 years ago. Further, as per
the allegation levelled in the First Information Report, in the alleged voice
recording between the witness namely Sohanpal @ Pappu and the
deceased, the deceased stated that his wife and applicant, used to harass
NABAIL No. 10141 of 2026
2

him. The name of the applicant was not taken by the deceased in the
conversation allegedly exchanged between the deceased and co-accused
Sohanpal. It is further submitted that the applicant, being brother of co-
accused Rajni has falsely been implicated in the present case. Co-accused
Rajni has already been granted regular bail vide order dated 14.09.2026
passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application
No. 32567 of 2026. The applicant has no criminal history.

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 he 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, he 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 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.
NABAIL No. 10141 of 2026
3

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 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.
NABAIL No. 10141 of 2026
4

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- Amit Kumar involved in
aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of
trial, on his/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 the court concerned.

(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/him 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.

(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
September 29, 2026
A.P. Pandey

Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…