HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22096 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj Gautam, learned AGA for the State-opposite party. 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. 120 of 2026, under Section 108 B.N.S., Police Station- Ahmadgarh, District- Bulandshahr, during the pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 25.04.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on 26.04.2026 under Sections 191(2), 69, 115(2), 351(2), 109, 131 B.N.S. No obscene video or photograph of the deceased has been collected by the investigating officer. Further, as per the allegations contained in the first information report, the alleged dying declaration of the deceased 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. Mere allegations of hurling abuses or harassing the deceased, in the absence of any positive act of instigation or intentional aid on the part of the applicant would not constitute the offence of abetment to suicide. 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 . Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph-11 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 11.5.2026 and in case, she is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the said liberty. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sushil Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Smt. Neetu .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Learned AGA has 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 as per the allegations contained in the first information report, the alleged dying declaration of the deceased 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 direct act attributable to the applicant that could be construed as instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid to the commission of suicide. Moreover, the applicant is a lady and has remained confined for more than three 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 enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant Smt. Neetu, 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 she: (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. October 1, 2026 Manish Kr BAIL No. 22096 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad