Santosh Singh Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16363 of 2026

Santosh Singh	.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mrityunjay Kumar Rai	Dwivedi, Pankaj
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶3

Court No. - 64

¶4

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 309 of 2025, under Sections 85, 108 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Didarganj, District Azamgarh during the pendency of the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 16.11.2025, whereas the first information report was lodged on 19.11.2025. 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 applicant was married to the deceased on 23.11.2016. The applicant and the other co-accused used to harass the deceased, demand dowry and assault her physically. Due to continuous cruelty and harassment, the deceased consumed the poisonous substance. Further, as per the postmortem report, the cause of death was uncertain and viscera was preserved and sent for chemical analysis. Viscera report is not part of the case diary. It is next contended that as per the

¶8

BAIL No. 16363 of 2026

¶9

2

¶10

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 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, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the cases of Nipun Aneja and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2017, decided on 03.10.2024, and Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. The State of Maharashtra and others, Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-2185 of 2024, decided on 18.08.2025. Investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been submitted. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant is in jail since 27.11.2025 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶11

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

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the first information report has been lodged belatedly. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death was uncertain and viscera was sent for chemical analysis. Viscera report is not part of the case diary. 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 remained confined for more than 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

¶13

BAIL No. 16363 of 2026

¶14

3

¶15

on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶16

Let the applicant- Santosh Singh, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

¶17