Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:17888 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 977 of 2025 Applicant :- Jagdish Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ambrish Kumar Kashyap Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Sri B.A.Khan and Sri Zawwar Haider, Advocates have filed their Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.2-informant. The same is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anupam Anand, learned Brief Holder for the State- opposite party no. 1, and Sri Zawwar Haider, learned counsel for the informant- opposite party no. 2, and perused the material placed on record. 3. This application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 254 of 2024, under Section 108 B.N.S., Police Station Bharthana, District Etawah. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The deceased was married to co-accused Krishna in February, 2023. As per the allegations in the first information report, 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 case of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda & ors. v. State of Gujarat, S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 7957 of 2024, dated 10.12.2024. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. It is next submitted that the investigation is going on and the applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case. 5. Learned brief holder for the State and the counsel for the opposite party no.2-informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, and, in particular, the fact that as per the allegations in the first information report, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 7. In the event of arrest, the applicant- Jagdish Yadav, involved in the aforesaid case crime, be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation; (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court; (iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court; (v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court; and, (vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. 8. Further, in default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same. 9. The application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 7.2.2025 Lbm/- Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad