HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36459 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record. 2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 302 of 2025, under Sections 108, 296, 351(2) B.N.S., Police Station- Rawatpur, District- Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of the 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 15.7.2025. The first information report was lodged on 17.7.2025. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. According to the postmortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. As per the allegations in the first information report and the material collected during the course of investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. The applicant, in no manner, abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. In support of his submission, counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Nipun Aneja and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.654 of 2017) decided on 03.10.2024 and Abhinav Mohan Delkar vs. The State of Maharashtra and others (Criminal Appeal Nos.2177-2185 of 2024) decided on 18.08.2025. Investigation has been completed. Charge sheet has been filed. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant is in jail since 12.8.2025 and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Irshad Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Gaurav .....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 and as per the allegations in the first information report and the material collected during the course of investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. Further, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has 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 delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant Gaurav, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on 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; (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 17, 2025 Manish Kr BAIL No. 36459 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad