Shailendra Kumar @ Shailendra Kumar Saroj vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15951 of 2026

Shailendra Kumar @ Shailendra Kumar Saroj

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Md. Muzzammil.I.Qureshi, Mohd Sakib
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 64

¶5

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶6

Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri S.S. Pandey, learned AGA for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 102 of 2025, under Section 108 B.N.S., Police Station- Kaushambi, District- Kaushambi, during the pendency of the trial.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 19.11.2025, whereas the first information report was lodged on 21.11.2025. The delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. In brief, the allegations in the first information report are that the deceased was married to the co-accused Laxmi Devi, who was having close relations with the applicant. The applicant and the co-accused Laxmi Devi used to threaten the deceased to stay away from their relationship. Owing to the conduct of the co-accused Laxmi Devi and continuous harassment caused, the deceased remained deeply disturbed and distressed. The deceased told the co-accused Laxmi Devi to mend her ways and stop doing wrongful acts, otherwise, he will commit suicide by hanging himself. In response thereto, the co-accused Laxmi Devi said "Go and die". Perturbed by the said conduct, the informant's son committed suicide. It is next contended that as per the postmortem report, cause of death is asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. Further, as per the allegations in the first information report, the alleged video footage 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. The words "Go

¶9

BAIL No. 15951 of 2026

¶10

2

¶11

and die" does not reflect the requisite ' mens rea ' on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events. In support of his submission, 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 23.4.2026 having no criminal antecedents and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶12

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

¶13

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, the alleged video footage 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 proximate or 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 no criminal antecedents and has remained confined for more than twenty days 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.

¶14

Let the applicant Shailendra Kumar @ Shailendra Kumar Saroj , 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 he:

¶15