HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33367 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Jagriti Nigam, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Akriti Chaturvedi, counsel for the informant and Sri Nagendra Mishra, 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. 105 of 2025, under Section 105 BNS, Police Station Madhaugarh, District Jalaun during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant did not administer any injection to the deceased. The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. The deceased was admitted on 08.07.2025 in the M.L.B. Medical College, Jhansi with the complaint of diarrhea and query seizure. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death is septic shock due to intra abdominal sepsis. Further, the deceased Shivam died due to his illness not on account of any wrong medicine or treatment. The applicant is in jail since 22.07.2025 having no criminal antecedents 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 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prashant Kumar, Shivendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Akriti Chaturvedi, Dev Raj Vind, G.A. Arun Kumar Bhadauria .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Court prima facie finds that at this stage there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death is septic shock due to intra abdominal sepsis. 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 Arun Kumar Bhadauria, 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 10, 2025 Lbm/- BAIL No. 33367 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad