HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14523 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Kesh, counsel for the informant and Sri Anupam Anand, learned brief holder for the State- respondent. 2. The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 13 of 2026, under Section 108 BNS, Police Station Badalpur, District Gautam Budh Nagar during the pendency of 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 14.01.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on 19.01.2026. The inordinate delay in filing the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. Initially, the first information report was lodged under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) BNS. During the course of investigation, the case was converted into Section 108 BNS. According to the postmortem report, the cause of death is craniocerebral damage and its complications. Viscera was preserved and sent for chemical analysis. Further, as per the allegations in the first information report, statement of the informant and the material collected during investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. Placing reliance upon the statement of the friend of the deceased namely Puneet Kumar it is contended that the deceased was in relationship with the applicant and has committed suicide due to emotional stress. The applicant, in no manner, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Raj Pandey, Shubham Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ram Kesh Hemlata .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 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 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, Abhinav Mohan Delkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others (Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-2185 of 2024) decided on 18.08.2025 and Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda & ors Vs. State of Gujrat (Criminal Appeal No. Nil of 2024, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7957 of 2024) decided on 10.12.2024. The applicant is in jail since 20.01.2026 having no criminal history and in case she is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned brief holder for the State and the 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, statement of the informant and the material collected during investigation, the necessary 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. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further, 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, 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 the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant Hemlata, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on her 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: BAIL No. 14523 of 2026 2 (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. May 5, 2026 Lbm/- BAIL No. 14523 of 2026 3 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad