Allahabad High Court
Smt. Afasana vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:210077
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8908 of 2025
Smt. Afasana
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Gyan Chandra Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the material available on record.
2. This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant- Smt. Afasana in connection with Case Crime No. 234 of 2021 under sections 147, 306, 506 and 34 I.P.C., P.S.-Parikshitgarh, District- Meerut.
3. It is alleged that a dispute had arisen between the informant party and other accused persons regarding which a criminal case was filed by the deceased Shama, daughter of Smt. Anjum, and the accused persons including the present one were pressurizing the deceased continuously for withdrawal of the case filed by her. It is further alleged that in a state of distress and fear she had no way left except to commit suicide. Subsequently on 2.7.2021 she committed suicide by administering some poison herself. FIR was lodged and now the charge sheet has been submitted.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and she has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false.
5. It is further submitted that the accused applicant has no concern at all regarding the criminal case which was existing between both the parties. It is further submitted that she has been implicated in this matter only on account of being a gram pradhan as she was not the family member of the accused or informant side. It is also submitted that the essential ingredients to establish an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are completely missing in this case and there is no material on record to show that the present applicant abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. It is further submitted that till the filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. she was granted protection but now the charge sheet has been filed and the applicant never misused the liberty granted by the Court. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.
6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that it is a case where a young lady committed suicide as she had gone into a state of depression and frustration on account of threatening made by the present accused applicant and other co-accused persons.
7. In Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2017) 1 SCC 433 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the basic ingredients of Section 306 IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, intention and involvement of accused to aid or instigate commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would militate against said indictment. Remoteness of culpable acts or omissions rooted in intention of accused to actualise the suicide would fall short of offence of abetment essential to attract Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of indictable acts or omission are concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 IPC thus criminalises sustained incitement for suicide.
8. In M. Arjunan v. State, (2019) 3 SCC 315 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that insulting deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that accused intended by such act(s) to instigate deceased to commit suicide. Unless ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
9. Although the charge sheet has been submitted in this matter but in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.
10. It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.
11. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.
12. In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that :
"11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87 Cr.P.C that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of caution.
12. So far as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170Cr.P.C, the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."
13. Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till conclusion of trial in the matter.
14. The anticipatory bail application is allowed accordingly.
15. In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-
-
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.
-
The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
-
The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected.
-
The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and if she has passport, the same shall be deposited by her before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.
16. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicant in accordance with law.
(Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)
November 24, 2025
Fhd
