SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(All) 1223

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
SAVITA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. – Respondent
BAIL 15240 / 2026



##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15240 of 2026

Savita

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.

.....Opposite

Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mayank Srivastava

Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Copy of postmortem report as well as viscera report of the

deceased produced by learned AGA, is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P.Tripathi,

learned AGA for the State-respondent.

3. The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been

filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime

No. 248 of 2025, under Section 108 BNS, Police Station

Charwa, District Kaushambi during the pendency of trial.

4. 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 20.06.2025,

whereas the first information report was lodged on 15.12.2025.

The inordinate delay in lodging the first information report is

fatal to the prosecution case. As per the postmortem report, the

cause of death is uncertain. Viscera was preserved and sent for

chemical analysis. As per the viscera report organochloro

insecticide poison was present. Further, as per the allegations in

the first information report and the material collected during

investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the

##PAGE2##

BAIL No. 15240 of 2026

2

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 allegation 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 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 others (Criminal Appeal

Nos. 2177-2185 of 2024) decided on 18.08.2025. The applicant

is in jail since 23.03.2026 having no criminal history and in case

she is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the said liberty.

5. Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not

satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the

record, this Court prima facie finds that the first information

report was lodged belatedly. As per the allegations in the first

information report and the material collected during

investigation, the necessary 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. The applicant is a lady and has no

criminal antecedents. Further, the applicant has remained

confined for more than one month 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 the merits of the case, I am of

the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

7. Let the applicant Savita, involved in the aforesaid case be

##PAGE3##

BAIL No. 15240 of 2026

3

released on bail on his 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:

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

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the

prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation

application

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top