Akash vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16040 of 2026

Akash

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Ajay Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 64

¶6

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶7

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

¶8

The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 170 of 2025, under Sections 108, 115(2), 352 B.N.S. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police StationKagarole, District- Agra, during the pendency of the trial.

¶9

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the allegations made in the first information report, the applicant along with his family members used to harass the deceased on account of her not having any child. It is alleged that they used to threaten, abuse and assault the deceased and also made demands of dowry from the informant. Owing to such continuous harassment, the deceased left her matrimonial house. Thereafter the informant came to know that she had died and her dead-body has been sent to the post-mortem house. It is further contended that as per the postmortem report, cause of death could not be ascertained. Viscera was preserved and sent for chemical analysis. As per the viscera report, no poison was found. 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. The applicant, in no manner, abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. Merely on the basis of allegations of harassment, the applicant has been implicated. The prosecution case, as it stands, does not disclose the mens rea or proximate act required to attract the said provision. 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

¶10

BAIL No. 16040 of 2026

¶11

2

¶12

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 05.12.2025 having no criminal antecedents and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶13

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

¶14

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 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 five months and after submission of the charge sheet 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.

¶15

Let the applicant Akash , 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:

¶16

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶17

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶18

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶19