HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39891 of 2024 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 Neeraj Kumar Sharma, 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. 213 of 2024, under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 105 B.N.S., Police Station Puranderpur, District Maharajganj during the pendency of the trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a student of B. Pharma- Final Year at Rahul Sanskrityayan College of Pharmacy Jaigah, Sekhpur, Azamgarh and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident dated 09.08.2024. As per the first information report, the wife of the informant gave birth to a child on 09.08.2024 at 10.00 A.M. According to the postmortem report, an injury was found on the head region. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death is coma due to ante mortem head injury. It is contended that the postmortem report does not support the prosecution version. Further, the future of the applicant would be jeopardized as a result of the present criminal case. The criminal history Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kamalesh Kumar Nishad, Khurshed Alam, Mahesh Kumar Sahani, Narendra Singh, Nasiruddin Warsi, Piyush Patel, Pradeep Kumar, Ram Awadh Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Dr Jayant Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph- 14 of the rejoinder affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 25.08.2024 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, an injury was found on the head region. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death is coma due to ante mortem head injury. The postmortem report does not support the prosecution version. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for almost 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- Dr. Jayant Kumar, 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 27, 2025 SKT/- BAIL No. 39891 of 2024 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad