HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30525 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shashank Shekhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party. 2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 98 of 2025, under Section 108 B.N.S., Police Station Birno, District Ghazipur during the pendency of the trial. 3. 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 post-mortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia due to ante mortem strangulation. It is next contended that 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 case of Mahendra Awase v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 2025, dated 17.01.2025, and Laxmi Das v. The State of West Bengal and others, Criminal Appeal No. 706 of 2017, dated 21.01.2025. Investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been submitted. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant is in jail since 28.06.2025 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shailendra Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Brijesh Rajbhar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that according to the post-mortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia due to ante mortem strangulation and 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 three 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. 6. Let the applicant- Brijesh Rajbhar, 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. 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 13, 2025 SKT/- BAIL No. 30525 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad