Susheel Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. U.P.

This is second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. First bail application was dismissed for want of prosecution by order dated 06.05.2026.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State.

¶11

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 0002 of 2026, under Sections 108, 351(3) of the BNS (old Section 306 & 506 IPC), Police Station Atrauli, District- Hardoi is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶12

Brief facts of the present case are that an FIR dated 03.01.2026 has been lodged under Sections 103(1) & 351(3) of B.N.S., 2023 (old Section 302 & 506 of IPC) against three named accused persons including the present applicant, who is husband of the deceased alleging therein that the marriage of the daughter of the informant was solemnized with the applicant ten years ago. All the named accused persons used to harass the daughter of the informant physically and mentally both and the applicant with an intent to re-marry used to threaten the daughter of the informant to kill her. On 31.12.2025, all the named accused persons hanged her after killing her.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the police during the investigation has dropped Section 103 of BNS and charge-sheet under Sections 108 and 351(3) has been filed.

¶14

It is further submitted that the cause of death shown in the post mortem report is Cardio Respiratory Arrest due to self hanging and there is no injury found on the body of deceased. Hence, the post mortem report does not corroborate with the version of the FIR and the statement of the informant.

¶15

It is further submitted that in the FIR, it has been mentioned that the

¶16

BAIL No. 3692 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

applicant with an intention to re-marry used to threaten the daughter of the informant to kill her but while making statement, he had not made any such allegation that the applicant wanted to re-marry. There was general allegation of alleged beating or physical exploitation by the applicant and other family members or in other words, general and omnibus allegations have been made against all the family members including the present applicant.

¶19

It is further submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurucharan Singh vs. State of Punjab [2017 (1) SCC 433] has held that to constitute abetment, intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would militate against the indictment. There must be evidence that an accused intended by such act(s) to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geo Varghese Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors. (2021) INSC 618 wherein it has been held that there must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of offence of suicide and mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not be sufficient in itself, unless, there are allegations of such actions on the part of the accused which compelled the commission of suicide.

¶21

It is further submitted that insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the offence of abetment of suicide and in support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Arjunan Vs. State [(2019) 3 SCC 315] and for cruelty/harassment, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdishraj Khatta v. State of Himachal Pradesh, [(2019) 9 SCC 248], wherein it has been held that in the case of abetment of suicide and cruelty, there is a need to establish conduct of accused which drove the deceased to commit suicide and for that there is no evidence on the record except the statement for the reason that there is no injury found on the body of the deceased except the ligature mark.

¶22

It is further submitted that the applicant, who is the husband of the deceased has falsely been implicated along with other family members in the present case by making bald and omnibus allegations.

¶23

It is further submitted that the ingredients of Section 108 BNS, 2023 i.e. abetment is not attracted in the present case for the reason that to constitute the offence of abetment, there must a course of conduct or action of intentionally aiding or facilitating another person to end his life.

¶24

It is further submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history and is in jail since 07.01.2026.

¶25

On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that from the contents of

¶26

BAIL No. 3692 of 2026

¶27

3

¶28

the FIR and the statement of informant, the offence is made out against the applicant but is unable to dispute the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant particularly the applicability of section 108 of BNS, 2023 in absence of the ingredients of the same as well as the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, which has been relied by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶29

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the record of the case as well as the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court relied by learned counsel for the applicant in the cases of Gurucharan Singh (supra), Geo Varghese (supra), M. Arjunan (supra) and Jagdishraj Khatta (supra) , prima facie, it is found that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case by making general allegations; the allegation of beating the daughter of the informant does not corroborate with the post mortem report as there is no injury found on the body of the deceased; the ingredients of Section 108 BNS, 2023 prima facie offence of abetment is not attracted against the applicant for the reason that to constitute the offence of abetment, there must be a course of conduct or action of intentionally aiding or facilitating another person to end his life which is prima facie not present in this case; in the FIR, it is not alleged as to what manner the applicant was harrasing the deceased, it is just a bald and omnibus allegation/ averment, thus, it is found that it is a fit case in which the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶30

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶31

Let the applicant- Susheel Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶32

(i) The applicant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶33

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶34

(iii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶35

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶36

(v) 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 her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶37

(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶38

(vii) The applicant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶39

BAIL No. 3692 of 2026

¶40

4

¶41

(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶42

In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶43

As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations made in this order.

¶44

May 21, 2026 Nitesh

¶45

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶46

Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Susheel Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Susheel Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. U.P.

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

Amar Jeet vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Mohd. Sameem @ Raja vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Indresh Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rohit Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Bhagelu @ Bhagwat Prasad and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secretariat Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Taslim vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin./ Addl. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others