Surya Vijay Gupta v. State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5834 of 2026 Court No. - 64

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Anupam Anand, brief holder for the State-respondent and perused the record.

2. The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 192 of 2025, under Section 108 BNS, Police Station Baburi, District Chandauli during the pendency of trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 03.12.2025. The first information report was lodged on 09.12.2025. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. The deceased was married to the applicant about eight years ago. According to the postmortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante- mortem hanging. Further, as per the allegations in the first information report, whats-app chat between the deceased and applicant and the material collected during investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. The applicant, in no manner, abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. 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.

Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sadhana Dubey, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Manoj Kumar Mishra Surya Vijay Gupta

.....Applicant(s)

State of U.P.

.....Opposite Party(s)

1

2177-2185 of 2024) decided on 18.08.2025. The applicant is in jail since 10.12.2025 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned brief holder for the State and the counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the first information report has been lodged belatedly. Further, as per the allegations in the first information report, whats-app chat between the deceased and applicant and the material collected during investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant has remained confined for more than two months 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.

6. Let the applicant Surya Vijay Gupta, involved in the aforesaid case be 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.

7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

February 17, 2026

Lbm/- BAIL No. 5834 of 2026

2

(Vivek Varma,J.)

2