HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4622 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nagendra Kumar Mishra, learned Brief Holder for the State-opposite party, and Sri Satish Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the informant. 2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 180 of 2025, under Section 108 B.N.S., Police Station Auncha, District Mainpuri during the pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 14.07.2025, whereas the first information report was lodged on 19.07.2025 under Sections 85, 80(2), 352 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act. Inordinate delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. During investigation, the aforesaid sections were deleted and the case was converted under Section 108 B.N.S. According to the postmortem report, the cause of death could not be ascertained. Viscera was preserved for toxicological and chemical examination. As per the viscera report, organophosphorus insecticide poison was found. Further, as per the allegations in the first information report, the alleged call recordings between the applicant and the deceased 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. Mere allegations of harassment in absence of any positive act of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pawan Kumar Patel, Anubhav Kumar Vimal, Km. Surabhi, Pawan Yadav, Ray Sahab Yadav, Shashank Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Satish Kumar Yadav Atul Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) instigation or intentional aid on the part of the applicant would not constitute the offence of abetment to suicide. 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 has no criminal antecedents. The applicant is in jail since 11.08.2025 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. 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. 5. 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. As per the allegations in the first information report, alleged call recordings between the applicant and the deceased 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 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 one year and a month 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. 6. Let the applicant- Atul Yadav, 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 conditions that he: (i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; (ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and, BAIL No. 4622 of 2026 2 (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. September 23, 2026 SKT/- BAIL No. 4622 of 2026 3 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad