Suman Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30590 of 2025

Suman

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shashank Shekhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 345 of 2024, under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad during the pendency of the trial.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to the post-mortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging. It is next contended that as per the allegations in the first information report, the suicide note and the material collected during the course of investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are not made out. The applicant, in no manner, abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Awase v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 2025, dated 17.01.2025, and Laxmi Das v. The State of West Bengal and others, Criminal Appeal No. 706 of 2017, dated 21.01.2025 . Investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been submitted. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant is a lady and is in jail since 12.05.2024 and if she is released on bail, she will not misuse the said liberty.

BAIL No. 30590 of 2025

2

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that according to the post-mortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging, and as per the allegations in the first information report 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. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for almost one year and five months 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.

Let the applicant- Suman, 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 Court concerned subject to the conditions that she: