HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31094 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 perused the record. 2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 397 of 2025, under Section 108 B.N.S., Police Station- Kotwali Padrauna, District- Kushinagar during pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the wife of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the first information report, the applicant is alleged to have caused head injury to Lalchand. Lalchand died at the spot. As per the postmortem report, no injury was found on the head region. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death could not be ascertained. Viscera was preserved and was sent for chemical analysis. F.S.L. report is still awaited. It is next contended that the applicant is a lady and has no criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 20.7.2025. In case she is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned Brief Holder for the State has 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 as per the first information report, the applicant Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ankit Kumar Dubey, Ashutosh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Kiran Devi .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) is alleged to have caused head injury to Lalchand. As per the postmortem report, no injury was found on the head region. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death could not be ascertained. Viscera was preserved and was sent for chemical analysis. F.S.L. report is still awaited. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for more than two months and 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 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, Kiran Devi involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that: i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness; iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court. 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 10, 2025 S.S. BAIL No. 31094 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad