MUNNI DEVI @ MEERA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 10304 of 2026

Munni Devi @ Meera And Another
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                               .....Opposite
                                                                     Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Abhishek Chauhan, Anurodh Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

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

2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in
Case Crime No. 153 of 2025, under Section 108 BNS, Police Station
Chakiya, District Chandauli with a prayer to grant them anticipatory bail.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are
absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case.
They have nothing to do with the alleged offence in spite of that the
police are trying to arrest the applicants. The first information report was
lodged after 20 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 applicants
that the deceased was instigated or abetted to commit suicide by the
applicants. The first information report was lodged due to ulterior motive.
It is further submitted that as per prosecution case, the deceased was
being blackmailed by the applicants and other co-accused. No allegation
has been levelled by the informant that the deceased was instigated or
abetted by the applicants to commit suicide. A concocted story was
developed after 20 days of the alleged incident. The applicants have no
criminal antecedents to their credit.

4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the
                                                     NABAIL No. 10304 of 2026
                               2


arrest of the applicants 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 applicants further
submits that the applicants undertake 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
applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they 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
because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that
                                                      NABAIL No. 10304 of 2026
                                3


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 applicants 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 applicants 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
                                                                                          NABAIL No. 10304 of 2026
                                                                    4


                                    following directions:-

                                    (i) In the event of arrest of the applicants-Munni Devi @ Meera and
                                    Chandrashekhar Vishwakarma involved in aforesaid case shall be
                                    released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial, on their 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;

                                    (ii) The applicants 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 applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
                                    officer; and

                                    (iv) The applicants 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
                                    applicants, before the concerned court.



                                                                                        (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
                                    October 1, 2026
                                    Lalit Shukla




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