Prof Dr Anurag Hasti vs State of U.P. and Another

Apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.159 of 2025 under Sections 108, 238, 79, 352, 351(2) B.N.S., Police Station Knowledge Park, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, the applicant - Prof Dr Anurag Hasti has filed this application seeking anticipatory bail in the aforesaid crime number.

¶10

The daughter of the informant aged about 21 years was a victim of torture in the Sharda University and feeling aggrieved and depressed by the conduct and behaviour of six named accused persons which led her to commit suicide by hanging herself. After lodging of the F.I.R. investigation started which is still pending.

¶11

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. He has been falsely implicated into this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. The matter is still under investigation and no charge-sheet has been submitted in respect of the present applicant. It is further submitted that the present F.I.R. contains a bundle of false and frivolous allegations. A suicide note was also obtained by the police which was prepared by the deceased herself before her death and no allegation whatsoever has been levelled against the present applicant in the said suicide note. It is further submitted that although there are some elements of causing harassment and torture to the deceased by some teachers of the University but however no specific allegation has been levelled against the present applicant. In the case diary

¶12

NABAIL No. 9288 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

also, no specific role to instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide has been assigned to the present applicant. The matter is still under investigation and the material evidence has yet to come on record. The essential ingredients to constitute an offence under section 108 B.N.S. (section 306 IPC) are missing in this case. It is further submitted that the applicant is cooperating with the investigation. It is further submitted that no custodial interrogation is required in this matter from the applicant. He has no criminal antecedents to his credit and as such, he is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶15

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the deceased had been regularly tortured and misbehaved by the named teachers of the University which forced her to commit suicide because no other way was left for her. However, he could not dispute this fact that in the suicide note prepared by the deceased, the name of the present applicant is nowhere mentioned.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

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, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It

¶19

NABAIL No. 9288 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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 the filing of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. / 193 (3) B.N.S.S. before the competent Court.

¶24

The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶25

In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the filing of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. / 193 (3) B.N.S.S. before the competent Court 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:-

¶26

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

¶27

(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 office.

¶28

NABAIL No. 9288 of 2025

¶29

4

¶30

(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.

¶31

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

¶32

November 19, 2025 ss

¶33

(Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)

¶34

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prof Dr Anurag Hasti v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prof Dr Anurag Hasti v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Mohd Jubair vs State of U.P.

Nadeem Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Nikhat Parveen vs State of U.P. and Another

Anita Dwivedi @ Anita Dubey vs State of U.P. and Another

Vandana Alias Vandana Rani Pundir vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Kumar Dubey and Another vs State of U.P. and Another