HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16406 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anupam Anand, learned Brief Holder for the State and Sri Raj Kumar Tripathi, counsel for the informant. Perused the record. 2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 56 of 2026, under Section 108 B.N.S., Police Station- Kydganj, District- Prayagraj during 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 26.3.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on 2.4.2026. The inordinate delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. In brief, the allegations in the first information report are, the deceased had taken a gold loan from IIFL finance limited company through the applicant. The applicant continuously used to threaten the deceased and had been demanding money regarding his share of the loan amount. Due to continuous harassment caused by the applicant, the deceased remained under severe stress and depression. Consequently, on 26.3.2026, he committee suicide by jumping into a river. Prior to the death, the deceased requested the applicant to help him to clear the gold loan. To this, the applicant replied 'go and die'. It is contended that merely on the allegations of harassment, the applicant has been implicated. The alleged utterance of words 'go and die' is not sufficient Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dewendra Singh, Suresh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mrigendra Singh, Raj Kumar Tripathi Mukesh Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) to constitute the alleged offence. As per the postmortem report, cause of death is asphyxia due to antemortem drowning. Further, as per the allegations in the first information report, the alleged suicide note, statement of the witness namely, Manish and the material collected during the course of the investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S., are not made out against the applicant. The applicant, in no manner, abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. 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, counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgements 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 other (Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-2185 of 2024) decided on 18.8.2025. The applicant is in jail since 3.4.2026 having no criminal history. Investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned Brief Holder for the State and counsel for the informant have 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 the inordinate delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. As per the postmortem report, cause of death is asphyxia due to antemortem drowning. Further, as per the allegations in the first information report, the alleged suicide note, statement of the witness namely, Manish and the material collected during the course of the investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S., are not made out against the applicant. 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. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant has presently remained confined for more than one month and 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 BAIL No. 16406 of 2026 2 the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. 6. Let the applicant, Mukesh Singh involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that: i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness; iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court. 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. May 14, 2026 S.S. BAIL No. 16406 of 2026 3 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad