HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15168 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Rishi Kesh Malviya, counsel for the informant as well as Sri Anupam Anand, learned Brief Holder 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. 236 of 2025, under Sections 108, 352, 351(2) B.N.S., Police Station- Nidhauli Kalan, District- Etah, during the pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the postmortem report, cause of death is asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. Further, as per the allegations in the first information report, alleged video recording, the suicide note 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. Merely on the allegation of harassment, the applicant has been implicated. The prosecution case, as it stands, does not disclose the mens rea or proximate act required to attract the provision. 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. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph-2 of the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Niklank Kumar Jain Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rishi Kesh Malviya Shabnam @ Suman .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 21.11.2025 and in case, she is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned AGA 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 as per the allegations in the first information report, alleged video recording, the 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. Further, the applicant is a lady and has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than five 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 Shabnam @ Suman, 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 she: (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. May 5, 2026 Manish Kr BAIL No. 15168 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad