HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25566 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mahipal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party, and Sri Sushil Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the informant. 2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 225 of 2026, under Sections 85, 108, 61(2) B.N.S., Police Station Sadabad, District Hathras during the pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant was married to the deceased about 24 years ago. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 02.06.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on 07.06.2026 under Sections 85, 103(1), 61(2) B.N.S. Inordinate delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. During investigation, Section 103(1) B.N.S. was deleted and Section 108 B.N.S. was added. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. Further, as per the allegations in the first information report, the alleged 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. The applicant, in no manner, abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. Mere allegations of extending threats or harassment in absence of any positive act of instigation or intentional aid compelling the deceased to commit suicide, do not constitute the offence of abetment to suicide. In Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mahipal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sushil Kumar Chaturvedi Ravendra @ Ravi .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the cases of Nipun Aneja and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2017, decided on 03.10.2024, and Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. The State of Maharashtra and others, Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-2185 of 2024, decided on 18.08.2025. Investigation has been completed and the charge- sheet has been submitted. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph-3 of the first supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 07.06.2026 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that as per the allegations in the first information report, the alleged 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. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than three months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and 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, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant- Ravendra @ Ravi, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of 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; and, (iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses. BAIL No. 25566 of 2026 2 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. September 29, 2026 SKT/- BAIL No. 25566 of 2026 3 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad