HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16378 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. 3. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 61 of 2026, under Sections 108, 3(5), 190, 191(2), 352, 351(3), 191(3) B.N.S., Police Station Junawai, District Sambhal during the pendency of the trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 09.03.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on 11.03.2026. The delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. Initially, the first information report was lodged under Sections 103(1), 3(5), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 333, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 329(3) B.N.S. During the course of investigation, Sections 103(1), 329(3), 115(2), 333 B.N.S. were 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 statements of the witnesses namely Ganga Sahai, Pokhraj, Om Verma, Pappu and Raju 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. Merely on the allegations of harassment, humiliation and assault by the applicant and co-accused persons, the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Javed Khan, Subuhi Naseem Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pramod Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) applicant has been implicated. The prosecution case, as it stands, does not disclose the mens rea or proximate act required to attract the said provision. In 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. The applicant is in jail since 9.03.2026 having no criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 5. 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. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the first information report has been lodged belatedly. According to the postmortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. As per the allegations in the first information report, the statements of the witnesses namely Ganga Sahai, Pokhraj, Om Verma, Pappu and Raju 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 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. 7. Let the applicant- Pramod Kumar, 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 BAIL No. 16378 of 2026 2 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. 8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. May 14, 2026 S.S. BAIL No. 16378 of 2026 3 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad