HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33895 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shiv Shanker Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and Sri N.K. Sharma, learned AGA for the State. 2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 260 of 2026, under Section 108 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Bardah, District Azamgarh, during the pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is the wife of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the post mortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. Further, as per the allegations in the first information report 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. Mere allegation of harassment and alleged utterance of words "go and die", in absence of any positive act of instigation, intentional aid, on the part of the applicant, would not constitute the offence of abetment of suicide. In support of his submissions, 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. The applicant is in jail since 01.08.2026 having no criminal history and in case, she is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the said Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Kumar Shukla, Ayush Jaiswal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shiv Shanker Yadav Supriya Pathak .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) liberty. 5. Learned AGA for the state and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 6. 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 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 is a lady having no criminal history and has remained confined for more than one and half months 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 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. 7. Let the applicant, Supriya Pathak, 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. 8. 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 Abhishek BAIL No. 33895 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma, J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad