HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24805 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pawan Kumar Dubey, 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. 200 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 61(2), 108 BNS, Police Station Atrauli, District Aligarh during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 04.04.2025. The first information report was lodged on 05.04.2025. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. The victim was recovered on 06.04.2025. In the statement of the victim under Section 180 BNSS, there is no allegation against the applicant. For the first time, the victim in her statement under Section 183 BNSS disclosed the name of the applicant. It is contended that the said statement is an after thought. The inconsistencies in the statements of the victim under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS discredits the prosecution case. It is next contended that the allegation of suicide is false as the victim is alive. The necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. The applicant is in jail since 14.04.2025 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rakesh Kumar Maurya, Shweta Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ishaan Upadhyaya, Pawan Kumar Dubey Rahman .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 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 applicant was not named in the first information report. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 04.04.2025. The first information report was lodged on 05.04.2025. In the statement of the victim under Section 180 BNSS there is no allegation against the applicant. For the first time, the victim in her statement under Section 183 BNSS disclosed the name of the applicant. 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 almost six 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 Rahman, 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 13, 2025 Lbm/- BAIL No. 24805 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad