2026:UHC:3224 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/2340/2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. M.C. Upadhyay and Mr. A.M. Saklani, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The first bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant seeking grant of regular bail in connection with F.I.R./Case Crime No. 213 of 2025, under Section 108 of the B.N.S. registered at Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the F.I.R. was lodged on 13.07.2025 by the informant alleging that his wife (since deceased), aged about 34 years, who was working in a company situated in SIDCUL, came into contact with the applicant after he obtained her mobile number on the pretext of providing her employment opportunities. It is alleged that the applicant developed closeness with the deceased and, upon her refusal to continue communication with him, he caused stoppage of her salary, due to which she became mentally distressed and committed suicide by consuming poison on 12.07.2025; that, after completion of investigation, the 2026:UHC:3224 Investigating Officer has submitted a charge-sheet against the applicant. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that, as per the F.I.R. itself, the deceased had allegedly informed her husband/complainant about the conduct of the applicant a few days prior to the incident; however, neither the deceased nor the informant lodged any complaint against the applicant at that stage, which casts doubt on the prosecution version. It is also submitted that the alleged suicide note is undated and does not mention any specific time, thereby creating serious doubt about its authenticity and evidentiary value. It is further argued that there is no proximate or live link between the alleged acts of the applicant and the extreme step taken by the deceased, and thus the essential ingredients of abetment are not made out. 7. It is submitted that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case; that, the material collected during investigation does not disclose any incriminating circumstance, either direct or circumstantial, to prima facie show that the applicant instigated, conspired, or intentionally aided the deceased in committing suicide; that, the essential ingredients of abetment are clearly absent, as there is no evidence of any positive act, active involvement, or proximate conduct on the part of the applicant which could have driven the deceased to take such an extreme step. 8. He would further submit that the prosecution story is inherently improbable; that, the deceased was 2026:UHC:3224 already employed in an industrial unit at SIDCUL, and therefore, the allegation that the applicant obtained her contact details on the pretext of providing employment is not believable; that, to attract Section 108 B.N.S., there must be clear evidence of mens rea along with a direct and proximate act of instigation or assistance. In the present case, there is no material to show any intentional provocation or encouragement by the applicant, and mere allegations or assumptions are not sufficient to constitute the offence of abetment of suicide. Reliance is placed upon Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which reads as under: “Section 108. Abetment of suicide.— If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 9. He would further submit that in view of the settled legal position that abetment involves a deliberate and conscious act of instigation or aid, and not mere association or suspicion, it is submitted that the ingredients of the aforesaid provision are not made out against the applicant. 10. It is also submitted that the applicant is in judicial custody since 14.07.2025; that, the bail application of the applicant has already been rejected by the court below vide order dated 30.10.2025; that, the applicant has no criminal history; that, he is a permanent resident of District Udham 2026:UHC:3224 Singh Nagar, and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with prosecution evidence. It is also submitted that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. 11. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the applicant. However, he does not dispute the fact that the alleged suicide note is undated, the applicant is in custody since 14.07.2025, and that he has no criminal history. 12. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the nature of accusations, the evidence on record, the absence of any specific and proximate act of instigation, the undated nature of the suicide note, the period of incarceration undergone by the applicant, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail at this stage. 13. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 14. Let the applicant, Krishan Kumar alias Kishan, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Alok Mahra, J.) 28.04.2026 Mamta MA MTA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f 244f3e584af1449e430ef900 bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b , postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1 d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8 b66dd26690a191648ab5d8 dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.04.29 18:52:42 +05'30' 2026:UHC:3224