HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28841 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Despite time granted, no counter affidavit has been filed by the State. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nagendra Kumar Mishra, learned Brief Holder for the State and Sri Ram Chandra Solanki, counsel for the informant. Perused the record. 3. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 40 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 108, 191(2), 74 B.N.S., and section 66D of Information and Technology Act, Police Station- Usrahar, District- Etawah during pendency of the trial. 4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Initially, the first information report was lodged on 2.5.2025 at 22.47 hours under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and section 66D of I.T. Act with regard to the alleged incident dated 26.4.2025 occurred at 10.50 a.m. According to the postmortem report cause of death could not be ascertained. Viscera was preserved and was sent for chemical analysis. F.S.L. report is still awaited. Further, as per the allegations in the first information report and the material collected during the course of the investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S., are not made out against the applicant. 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manvendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ram Chandra Solanki Rizwan .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2017) decided on 03.10.2024 and Abhinav Mohan Delkar vs. The State of Maharashtra and other (Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-2185 of 2024) decided on 18.8.2025. The applicant is in jail since 3.5.2025 having no criminal history. Investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 5. Learned Brief Holder for the State and counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that according to the postmortem report cause of death could not be ascertained. Viscera was preserved for chemical analysis. Further, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S., are not made out against the applicant. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for more than five months and 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 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, Rizwan involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that: i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness; iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court. 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. October 27, 2025 S.S. BAIL No. 28841 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad