DINESHversusSTATE OF UP

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 8731 of 2026

Dinesh
                                                               .....Applicant(s)
                                     Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)           : Ashish Tripathi, Nikhil Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)      : G.A.

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

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

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

3. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case
Crime No.0138/2026, under Sections 191(2), 333, 127(2), 108 BNS, Police
Station - Mohamdabad, District Fatehgarh, with a prayer to grant him
anticipatory bail.

4. 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. As per the allegation contained in the FIR, the applicant and
six co-accused had physically assaulted the deceased. However, no injury
was noticed on the body of the deceased. A general allegation has been
levelled against seven persons, including the applicant. As per the
postmortem report, the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante-
mortem hanging. It is further contended that the arrest of co-accused Vikas
and three others has been stayed by the Division Bench of this Court vide
order dated 14.08.2026 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 13024 of 2026.
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.
                                                        NABAIL No. 8731 of 2026
                                 2


5. 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.

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

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

8. 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.

9. 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.
                                                          NABAIL No. 8731 of 2026
                                  3


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.

10. 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].

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

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

13. 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.

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

(i) In the event of arrest of the applicant- Dinesh involved in aforesaid case
                                                                                            NABAIL No. 8731 of 2026
                                                                    4


                                    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.

                                    15. 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
                                    Radhika




Digitally signed by :-
RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad