Neetu vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 9987 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Neetu vs State Of U.P. on 1 September, 2025

Author: Krishan Pahal

Bench: Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:153979
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24069 of 2025   
 
   Neetu    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P.    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Aushim Luthra, Harishchandra Yadav   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A., Santosh Kumar Pandey   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 65
 
   
 
 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.      

1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the informant is not present.

2. Heard Sri Aushim Luthra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.175 of 2025, under Sections 108 B.N.S., Police Station- Gunnaur, District- Sambhal, during the pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about four days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the other injuries sustained by the deceased person are simple in nature and could be caused at the time of retrieving the dead body from the ceiling. Subsequently, the prosecution story has been changed to that of abetment to suicide as it is stated that applicant was having illicit relationship with the husband of the deceased person, as such, no overt act has been assigned to the applicant of having abetted the deceased to commit suicide.

6. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized about thirteen years before the incident. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.6.2025 and she is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

8. In M. Arjunan v. State (2019) 3 SCC 315, Supreme Court, speaking through R. Banumathi, J., elucidated the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC in the following observations: ?7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied the accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC.?

9. Similarly, in another recent judgment passed in Ude Singh v. State of Haryana (2019) 17 SCC 301, the Supreme Court expounded on the ingredients of Section 306 IPC, and the factors to be considered in determining whether a case falls within the ken of the aforesaid provision, in the following terms: ?16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/ reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.

16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased.?

10. Similarly, in Rajesh v. State of Haryana (2020) 15 SCC 359, held as follows: ?9. Conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.?

11. In a recent decision of Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab (2020) 10 SCC 200, Supreme Court held: ?15. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be established. To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Section 107 IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability. In order to prove mens rea, there has to be something on record to establish or show that the appellant herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased.?

12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of FIR and the fact that no overt act has been assigned to the applicant, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

13. Let the applicant- Neetu, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

15. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

September 1, 2025

Vikas Verma