Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 11567 (ALL)

JONY v. STATE OF U.P.

BAIL/31718/2026 · 2026-09-28

Vivek Varma

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31718 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party. 2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 269 of 2026, under Sections 85, 108 B.N.S., Police Station Jewar, District Gautam Buddha Nagar 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 incident is alleged to have occurred on 22.07.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on 27.07.2026 under Sections 85 and 105 B.N.S. Delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. During investigation, Section 105 B.N.S. was deleted and Section 108 B.N.S. was added. According to the postmortem report, the cause of death was kept pending till receipt of chemical analysis report of viscera. Further, as per the allegations in the first information report, the statement of Dr. Krishna Kumar Yadav 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 matrimonial discord between the applicant and the deceased, coupled with allegations of extending threats, assault or harassment in 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, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Hukum Singh, Puneet Bhadauria Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Aditya Vardhan Singh, G.A. Jony .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 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 charge-sheet has been submitted. The applicant is in jail since 28.07.2026 having no criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned A.G.A. has 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 statement of the Dr. Krishna Kumar Yadav 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 has remained confined for almost two 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- Jony, 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. 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. 31718 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad