[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Rukhsar @ Sameena Khatoon vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. on 12 May, 2026
Author: Manish Kumar
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:34111
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2804 of 2026
Rukhsar @ Sameena Khatoon
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Sushant Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Amit Kumar Singh
Court No. - 13
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.
1. Learned AGA has filed counter affidavit which is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State.
3. Learned counsel for the informant has filed counter affidavit and learned counsel for the applicant has filed rejoinder affidavit against the same, which are taken on record.
4. By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 0122 of 2026, under Section 108 of the BNS (old Section 306 IPC), Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District- Sultanpur is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
5. Brief facts of the present case are that an FIR dated 25.02.2026 has been lodged under Section 108 of B.N.S., 2023 (old Section 306 of IPC) against two named accused persons including the present applicant alleging therein that the co-accused namely Taufiq Khan (husband of the present applicant) by giving false promise of marriage to the daughter of the informant eloped with her and stayed in the same house where the applicant is residing. The co-accused and the applicant used to harass the daughter of the informant physically and mentally due to which she has committed suicide.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is the wife of the co-accused Taufiq Khan and she has nothing to do with the said incident as alleged in the FIR. She has falsely been implicated in the present case.
7. It is further submitted that from perusal of the suicide note of the deceased dated 21.02.2026, the only allegation against the applicant is that whenever the deceased used to call the husband of the applicant, the applicant used to disconnect her call or block the call and for that reason, a case cannot be made out against the applicant under Section 108 B.N.S., 2023.
8. It is further submitted that the ingredient 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.
9. 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.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant has 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.
11. It is further submitted that the applicant is a lady having no criminal history and is in jail since 26.02.2026.
12. On the other hand, learned AGA and counsel for the informant have submitted that from the contents of 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.
13. 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) and Geo Varghese (supra), prima facie, it is found that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case; 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 allegation/ averment, thus, it is found that it is a fit case in which the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
14. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.
15. Let the applicant- Rukhsar @ Sameena Khatoon 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:-
(i) The applicant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.
(iii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).
(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.
(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.
(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.
(vii) The applicant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.
(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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
(Manish Kumar,J.)
May 12, 2026
Nitesh
