Sanjana vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16452 of 2026

Sanjana

	Versus .....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Ram Raj Pandey, Shubham Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 64

¶6

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anupam Anand, learned Brief Holder for the State. Perused the record.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 212 of 2025, under Section 108 B.N.S., Police Station- Narsaina District- Bulandshahar during pendency of the trial.

¶9

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the wife of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 15.8.2025, whereas the first information report was lodged on 17.8.2025. The delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. In brief, the allegations in the first information report are, the applicant was married to the deceased on 27.5.2024. The applicant continuously harassed the deceased on account of money and property. The deceased died due to poisoning. The applicant and other co-accused are responsible for his death. It is contended that merely on the allegations of harassment, the applicant has been implicated. As per the postmortem report, cause of death is 'cardio respiratory failure' . Viscera was preserved and sent for chemical analysis. Viscera report is not part of case diary. Further, as per the allegations in the first information report and the material collected during the course of the investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S., are not made out against the applicant. The applicant,

¶10

BAIL No. 16452 of 2026

¶11

2

¶12

in no manner, abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. 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 judgements 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 other (Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-2185 of 2024) decided on 18.8.2025 . The applicant is in jail since 17.8.2025 having no criminal history. Investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed. In case she is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the said liberty.

¶13

Learned Brief Holder for the State 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 the delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. As per the postmortem report, cause of death is 'cardio respiratory failure' . Viscera was preserved and sent for chemical analysis. Viscera report is not part of case diary. Further, as per the allegations in the first information report and the material collected during the course of investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S., are not made out against the applicant. 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. The applicant is a lady and has no criminal antecedents. The applicant has presently remained confined for more than eight months 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 intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Let the applicant, Sanjana involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions

¶16

BAIL No. 16452 of 2026

¶17

3

¶18

that:

¶19

i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶20

ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;

¶21

iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.