HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26205 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nagendra Kumar Mishra, learned Brief Holder for the State, and Sri Saurabh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant. 2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 34 of 2025, under Section 105 B.N.S., Police Station Baberu, District Banda during the pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 21.01.2025. The first information report was lodged on 01.02.2025. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. According to the postmortem report, the cause of death is shock due to ante mortem electric burn injury. The applicant had no intent to cause murder of the deceased Maharunnisha. It is next contended that identically placed co- accused Mukesh has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 21.08.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23671 of 2025, Mukesh v. State of U.P. The applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 24.03.2025 having no criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned Brief Holder for the State and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Chandra Prakash Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rahul Dwivedi, Saurabh Dwivedi Parvesh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the first information report has been lodged belatedly. According to the postmortem report, the cause of death is shock due to ante mortem electric burn injury. Identically placed co-accused Mukesh has been granted bail by this Court. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than six months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and 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, therefore, 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- Parvesh, 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 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 SKT/- BAIL No. 26205 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad