RAHEEMAversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 6984 of 2026

Raheema
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                   :   Mohammad Belal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)              :   Adnan Aamir, G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Mohammad Belal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.I.
Zafri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Adnan Aamir, learned
counsel appearing for the informant 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. 204 of 2025, under Section 108 BNS, Police Station
Bahadurgarh, District Hapur with a prayer to grant her anticipatory bail.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is to the effect that a first information
report was lodged against the applicant by her mother-in-law, namely,
Falaknaz on 18.8.2025 at 18:15 hours in respect of the alleged incident
dated 8/9.8.2025 at 00:30 hours. The first information report was
registered as Case Crime No. 204 of 2025, under Section 103(1) BNS at
Police Station Bahadurgarh, District Hapur. It is alleged in the first
information report that marriage between the son of the informant and the
applicant was solemnized on 25.4.2025 but a matrimonial dispute was
going on between the married couple. In the intervening night of 8th and
9th August, 2025, an altercation allegedly took place between the
deceased and the applicant around 00:30 hours and, therefore, the
informant heard sound of fire and she along with her daughter rushed to
the room of the applicant and the deceased; the applicant opened the room
and thereafter the informant found her son in injured condition. The
deceased was taken to hospital with the help of neighbors Zakir and
                                                      NABAIL No. 6984 of 2026
                               2


Muzahid, where he was declared dead. The informant made her suspicion
upon the applicant and alleged that it appears that on account of
altercation between the deceased and the applicant, the deceased was
killed by the applicant. Lastly, it is alleged that a complaint was moved by
the informant on 10.8.2025 but her first information report was not
registered by the police.

4. 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 nine days. It is further submitted that the alleged incident is said to
have taken place on 8/9.8.2025, whereas the first information report was
lodged on 18.8.2025. The delay in lodging the first information report has
not been satisfactorily explained by the informant. Initially, the first
information report was lodged under Section 103(1) BNS but later on,
investigation was converted into Section 108 BNS. However, 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. During the
course of investigation, statements of Muzahid and Zakir were recorded
under Section 180 BNSS, wherein they stated that there is a murmuring in
the village that the deceased committed suicide. The inquest report of the
deceased was prepared on 8.8.2025, wherein panch witnesses opined that
it was a case of suicide. An application was moved by Khalid s/o Hamid
stating therein that his nephew has committed suicide in the night of
7/8.8.2025 in his house. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of
several persons and no one claimed that the deceased was killed by the
applicant. The first information report was lodged by the informant in
order to deprive the applicant from the property of the deceased. The
Investigating Officer recorded subsequent statement of Muzahid Ali, who
stated that the informant lodged the first information report to deprive the
applicant from the property of the deceased. The first information report
was lodged by the informant after consultation with her family members.
The Investigating Officer submitted final report no. 37 of 2025 on
27.10.2025, however, the same was not accepted and an order for further
                                                     NABAIL No. 6984 of 2026
                               3


investigation was passed by the Senior Police Officers.

5. It is further submitted, during the course of further investigation, that
the statements of the witnesses of the inquest report, namely, Talha Khan
and Abuzar Khan were recorded by the Investigating Officer on 6.6.2026
i.e. after around ten months of the incident, wherein they stated that the
deceased was under depression on account of conduct of the applicant and
therefore, he committed suicide by his licensee pistol. On the basis of
statements of the aforesaid witnesses, the Investigating Officer converted
the present case from Section 103(1) BNS to Section 108 BNS. It is
further submitted that if the statements of the witnesses Talha Khan and
Abuzar Khan are accepted in toto, even then no prima facie offence is
made out against the applicant to prosecute her under Section 108 BNS.
From perusal of their statements, it is clear that the applicant neither
instigated nor abetted the deceased to commit suicide. It is no case of the
prosecution that the deceased had no other option except to commit
suicide. The basic ingredients are not made out to prosecute the applicant
under Section 108 BNS. There is no mens rea on the part of the applicant
or direct or indirect act of instigation, which leaves the deceased with no
option except to commit suicide. However, it is also submitted that the
aforesaid witnesses are witnesses of the inquest report and this fact was
not narrated by them at the time of preparation of inquest report,
therefore, these witnesses cannot be categorized as truthful witnesses.
Their statements cannot be believed to prosecute the applicant in the
present case.

6. 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, she shall not misuse the liberty of
bail and shall cooperate with the investigation, and shall abide by all the
                                                      NABAIL No. 6984 of 2026
                               4


conditions that may be imposed by the Court.

7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the informant have opposed the application for anticipatory
bail, however, they do not dispute the factual aspect. It is further
submitted that the delay in lodging the first information report has been
explained in the first information report itself. The complaint was given to
the police authorities on 10.8.2025 in respect of alleged commission of
offence, however, the same was not registered by the police. The
postmortem report establishes that the death was caused by a firearm
weapon resulting in intracranial hammeorage and does not by itself
establish the manner of suicide. The deceased and the applicant had a
quarrel before the incident, who were together in the same room and the
applicant opened the door after few minutes of the gunshot. These
circumstances, prima facie, disclose material requiring investigation into
the applicant's role and cannot be brushed aside at this stage.

8. In rebuttal, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that
the Investigating Officer has concluded the investigation and filed a
charge-sheet before his Senior Officer on 5.8.2026, however, the same
has not been forwarded to the court concerned, a copy of the charge-sheet
has been appended along with rejoinder affidavit. It is further submitted
that since the investigation is complete in this case, therefore, there is no
requirement of custodial interrogation of the applicant.

9. I have heard the rival submissions of both sides and perused the
record.

10. The first information report of the present case was lodged under
Section 103(1) BNS, after nine days of the alleged incident. Initially, final
report was submitted by the Investigating Officer, however, further
investigation was conducted by the orders passed by the Senior Police
Officers. The charge-sheet has already been prepared in this case and
there is no allegation against the applicant that she did not cooperate with
the investigation. Talha Khan and Abuzar Khan were witnesses of the
inquest report and they were present before the police authorities on
8.8.2025 at the time of preparation of inquest report, however, nothing
                                                             NABAIL No. 6984 of 2026
                                   5


was stated by them in respect of instigation or provocation made by the
applicant. They alleged for the first time on 6.6.2026 that the deceased
committed suicide on account of cruelty caused by the applicant. The
Second Investigating Officer has also completed investigation and
submitted charge-sheet dated 5.8.2026 before the Senior Police Officers.
There is no allegation that the applicant instigated or provoked the
deceased to commit suicide. Since the invetigation has been completed by
the Investigating Officer, therefore, there is no requirement of custodial
interrogation of the applicant.

11. In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held that :

     "11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a
     Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had
     been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance
     or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed
     in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It
     has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court
     is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of
     arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of
     arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under
     Section 87 Cr.P.C that the accused has either been absconding or shall
     not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due
     service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii)
     above by the High Court are in the nature of caution.

     12. In sofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles
     under Section 170Cr.P.C, the most apposite observations are in sub-para
     (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-
     bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of
     investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is
     released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested
     during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient
     to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set
     out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has
     not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest
                                                         NABAIL No. 6984 of 2026
                                 6


     and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would
     be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not
     agree more with this."

12. 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].

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

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

15. 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, and the case of the applicant is
squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments, a case for anticipatory bail
is made out.

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

(i) In the event of arrest/appearance of the applicant-Raheema involved
                                                                                           NABAIL No. 6984 of 2026
                                                                    7


                                    in aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion
                                    of trial, before the competent Court on her furnishing a personal bond of
                                    Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of
                                    the court concerned;

                                    (ii) The applicant shall co-operate during trial and shall report to the court
                                    concerned as and when required for the purpose of fair trial.

                                    (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; and

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

                                    17. 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 18, 2026
                                    Lalit Shukla




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