MONU @ ROHITversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 10153 of 2026

Monu @ Rohit
                                                            .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                             :    Ravi Sahu
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. 205 of 2026, under Sections 108, 115(2), 333, 351(3) of
B.N.S., Police Station - Rasoolabad, District Kanpur Dehat, 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 ten days. No plausible explanation has been offered by the first
informant in respect of delay in filing the first information report.
Initially, it is alleged in the F.I.R. that the deceased was done to death by
the accused persons including the present applicant, however, the F.I.R.
was registered under Section 108 of B.N.S. In fact, there was no evidence
that the deceased was done to death by the accused persons including the
applicant. The applicant has no criminal history. 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. It is further
submitted that identically situated co-accused Alok @ Nitin Kumar, has
been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 15.09.2026 passed in Crl.
                                                     NABAIL No. 10153 of 2026
                               2


Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 B.N.S.S. No. 9525 of 2026.

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.

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
                                                      NABAIL No. 10153 of 2026
                                3


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.

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.
                                                                                        NABAIL No. 10153 of 2026
                                                                   4


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

                                    (i) In the event of arrest of the applicant- Monu @ Rohit involved in
                                    aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of
                                    trial, on his 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