HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44587 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Kandarp Srivastava, counsel for the applicant, Sri Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi, counsel for the informant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned AGA for the State. Perused the material available on record. 2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 676 of 2025, under Sections 85, 352, 108, 351(3) of B.N.S.; 67 of Information Technology Act and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Jagdishpura, District- Agra, during the pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Prior to the alleged incident dated 04.10.2025, the applicant had already instituted divorce proceeding under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra registered as Suit No.2493 of 2025 (Sri Saurabh Dubey vs. Smt. Preetanjali Dubey and another). The said petition was filed on the ground of alleged illicit relations of the deceased with another person, thereby evidencing pre-existing marital strains. On 03.10.2025, the deceased had also filed an Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aditi Srivastava, Kandarp Srivastava, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi, Prashank Mishra Saurabh Dubey .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. for registration of the first information report against the applicant. It is contended that the photographs sent by the applicant from his mobile number to the family members of the deceased were not A.I. generated. There is no adverse report of Cyber Cell. As per the postmortem report, cause of death is asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. Further, as per the allegations in the first information report, suicide note and the material collected during the course of investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. The applicant, in no manner, abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. In support of his submission, counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Nipun Aneja and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.654 of 2017) decided on 03.10.2024 and Abhinav Mohan Delkar vs. The State of Maharashtra and others (Criminal Appeal Nos.2177-2185 of 2024) decided on 18.08.2025. The applicant is in jail since 09.10.2025 having no criminal antecedents and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned AGA for the State and counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this Court prima facie finds that prior to the death of the deceased, her relations with the applicant was not cordial. Further, as per the allegations in the first information report, suicide note and the material collected during the course of investigation, the essential ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. There is no proximate or direct act attributable to the applicant that could be construed as instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid to the commission of suicide. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained confined for more than five months and after submission of the charge sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be BAIL No. 44587 of 2025 2 enlarged on bail. 6. 6. Let the applicant Saurabh Dubey, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions that he: (i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; (ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses. 7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. March 18, 2026 Manish Kr BAIL No. 44587 of 2025 3 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad