HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35664 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party. 3. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 231 of 2025, under Sections 108, 85, 115(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station Bardah, District Azamgarh during the pendency of the trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is husband of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to the postmortem report, the cause of death could not be ascertained. Viscera was preserved. The FSL report is still awaited. Further, as per the allegations in the first information report and the material collected during the course of 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. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the cases of Nipun Aneja and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2017, decided on 03.10.2024, and Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. The State of Maharashtra and others, Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-2185 of 2024, decided on 18.08.2025. Investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been submitted. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph- 11 of the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Chandan Kumar Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pankaj Saroj .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 18.08.2025 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that according to the postmortem report, the cause of death could not be ascertained and the viscera was preserved. As per the allegations in the first information report and the material collected during the course of investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. Moreover, 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, and 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, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 7. Let the applicant- Pankaj Saroj, 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 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. 8. 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 29, 2025 SKT/- BAIL No. 35664 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad