HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28003 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sandeep Kumar Dubey, counsel for the informant and Sri Rupak Chaubey, 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. 38 of 2025, under Section 108 BNS, Police Station Katera, District Jhansi during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to the postmortem report, the cause of death is shock and asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. 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 submission, counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgements 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. It is next contended that identically placed co-accused Kamlesh Kushwaha has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28083 of 2025. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Umesh Chandra Prajapati Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sandeep Kumar Dubey Smt. Ram Kunwar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) The applicant claims parity. The applicant is a lady and is in jail since 03.06.2025 having no criminal history and in case she is enlarged on bail, she 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 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 four 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 Smt. Ram Kunwar, 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 she: (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 Lbm/- BAIL No. 28003 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad