HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36324 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Sri Sharad Srivastava, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the informant. The same is taken on record. 2. Heard counsel for the applicant, counsel for the informant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned AGA for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record. 3. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 655 of 2025, under Sections 85, 115(2) of B.N.S., Police Station- Kotwali, District- Ghazipur, during the pendency of the trial. 4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is brother-in-law of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 23.8.2025. The first information report was lodged on 29.8.2025. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. According to the postmortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. As per the allegations, 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. In support of his submission, counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Nipun Aneja and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.654 of 2017) decided on 03.10.2024 and Abhinav Mohan Delkar vs. The State of Maharashtra and others (Criminal Appeal Nos.2177-2185 of 2024) decided on 18.08.2025. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant is in jail since 31.8.2025 and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pulak Ganguly, Ravi Bhushan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Rana Singh Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Learned AGA 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 the first information report was lodged belatedly and as per the allegations, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. Further, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained confined for more than one month 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 delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 7. Let the applicant Rana Singh Yadav, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the 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; (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 17, 2025 Manish Kr BAIL No. 36324 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad