Bani Singh vs State of U.P.

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Bani Singh seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 519 of 2025, under Sections 108 B.N.S., Police Station- Dibai, District- Bulandshahr.

¶10

In compliance of the earlier order passed by this Court, complete case diary and instructions is available before this Court.

¶11

As per FIR of this case which was lodged on the tehrir given by the informant Raj Kumar it was alleged that the deceased Tejendra, the younger brother of the informant was having some love affairs with co-accused Pushpa Devi for a period of about one year in connection of which he was harassed by present accused and her bhahi Pushpa Devi and being frustrated and puzzled with their act of harassment Tejendra committed suicide on 4.8.2025 by hanging himself from some tree. Investigation of the case is still going on.

¶12

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on in the matter. It is further submitted that the FIR of this case is nothing but a bundle of facts which are very ambiguous. It is further submitted that it is strongly objected that Pushpa Devi was having some love affairs with the deceased because in the same FIR it is mentioned that co-accused Pushpa Devi and the present accused Bani Singh used to harass the deceased which was the cause of his suicide. It is also submitted that there is no complaint on record which brings this matter under the cover of Section 108 B.N.S./ 306 I.P.C. The essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 108 B.N.S./ 306 I.P.C. are completely missing in this case. It is further submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed at least at this juncture that the accused is having any intention to abate Tejendra to commit suicide. It is further submitted that the accused is having no criminal history to his credit. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶14

In Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2017) 1 SCC 433 the Hon'ble

¶15

NABAIL No. 8760 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

Apex Court held that the basic ingredients of Section 306 IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, intention and involvement of accused to aid or instigate commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would militate against said indictment. Remoteness of culpable acts or omissions rooted in intention of accused to actualise the suicide would fall short of offence of abetment essential to attract Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of indictable acts or omission are concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 IPC thus criminalises sustained incitement for suicide.

¶18

In M. Arjunan v. State, (2019) 3 SCC 315 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that insulting deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that accused intended by such act(s) to instigate deceased to commit suicide. Unless ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC.

¶19

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶20

In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶21

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C./ 193 of BNSS before the competent Court.

¶22

12. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶23

In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶24

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶25

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police

¶26

NABAIL No. 8760 of 2025

¶27

3

¶28

office.

¶29

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶30

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim protection granted to the applicant.

¶31

November 13, 2025 Fhd

¶32

(Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)

¶33

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bani Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bani Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Hema @ Prem Lata vs State of U.P.

Akeel Mohammad and 2 Others vs State of U.P.

Kaptan Alias Kaptan Singh Alias Sukhdev vs State of U.P.

Sumit vs State of U.P.

Akash Kumar vs State of U.P.

Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Patel vs State of U.P.