Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:14133 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2960 of 2025 Applicant :- Pushpendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Puneet Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Puneet Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.111 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Thariyaon, District Fatehpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant could not assist the Court in a proper way, as such, I myself have perused the record with the assistance of learned A.G.A. and found the following ground:- (i). The FIR is delayed by about thirteen days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. (ii). The cause of death could not be ascertained and in the FSL report, chlorpyrifos insecticide has been found, as such, the instant case seems to be a case of suicide. (iii). The informant himself had given an application on 12.05.2024 at the police station, which has been annexed at page no.54 to the bail application and there is no allegation of demand of dowry or cruelty in the said application dated 12.05.2024. The FIR has been instituted subsequently on 24.05.2024. (iv). There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.05.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 5. The Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Singh and another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Others, AIR 1980 SC 785 has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the inordinate delay of thirteen days in institution of the FIR coupled with the fact that the cause of death could not be ascertained and chlorpyrifos insecticide has been found in the FSL report, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 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. 7. Let the applicant- Pushpendra Singh, who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 9. 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. Order Date :- 31.1.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad