HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30966 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.S.Pandey, 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. 126 of 2025, under Section 105 BNS, Police Station Munderwa, District Basti 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 15.06.2025. On 16.06.2025 an information was furnished by the informant to the concerned police station that the father of the informant died on 15.06.2025. In the said application there is no allegation against the applicant. Subsequently, on 04.07.2025 the present FIR has been lodged against the applicant and two others. It is contended that the delay is fatal to the prosecution case. Further, as per the postmortem report, the deceased sustained a single injury on the head. A vague role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender, who caused the single injury on the head of the deceased. The applicant is in jail since 02.08.2025 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raman Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rajesh Mishra .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the first information report has been lodged belatedly. A vague role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender, who caused the single injury on the head of the deceased. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than two months and after submission of 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 Rajesh Mishra, 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 15, 2025 Lbm/- BAIL No. 30966 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad