HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31173 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Alok Tripathi, counsel for the informant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 109 of 2025, under Section 108 BNS, Police Station Bhojpur, District Ghaziabad during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 07.02.2025. An application for registration of the first information report was submitted before the Police Commissioner, Ghaziabad on 14.02.2025. The postmortem was conducted on 19.02.2025. According to the postmortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. The first information report was thereafter lodged on 09.05.2025. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. As per the allegations in the first information report and the material collected during 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. In support of his submissions, 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. The applicant is in jail since Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Syed Ali Imam Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Alok Tripathi, G.A. Zubair .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 24.06.2025 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned AGA and the counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the FIR was lodged belatedly. The necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further, 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, 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 the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant- Zubair 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 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; 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 17, 2025 SKT/- BAIL No. 31173 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad