Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1056 (ALL)

MEGHSHYAM v. STATE OF U.P.

BAIL/12984/2026 · 2026-04-19

Vivek Varma

Criminal Appealbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12984 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.P. Tripathi, 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. 673 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 108(1), 85 B.N.S., Police Station- Jaint, District- Mathura, 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. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 11.12.2025, whereas the first information report was lodged on 15.12.2025. The inordinate delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. The deceased was married to the applicant on 08.02.2013. As per the postmortem report, cause of death is asphyxia due to hanging. Further, as per the allegations in the first information report, statements of the independent witnesses, namely, Radhey Shyam, Satyaveer, Smt. Radha Rani, Smt. Meena Devi, Smt. Geeta Devi and Smt. Jagwati 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Lallan Prasad Pal, Saroj Kumar Dubey, Vineet Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sushil Kumar Pandey Meghshyam .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) since 27.12.2025 having no criminal antecedents and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 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 in the first information report, statements of the independent witnesses, namely, Radhey Shyam, Satyaveer, Smt. Radha Rani, Smt. Meena Devi, Smt. Geeta Devi and Smt. Jagwati 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. 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. Moreover, the applicant has no criminal antecedents 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 Meghshyam, 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. April 20, 2026 Manish Kr BAIL No. 12984 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad