HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37586 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant Sri V.P.Tripathi, 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. 89 of 2025, under Section 108 BNS, Police Station Trilokpur, District Siddharth Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 08.06.2025. The first information report was lodged on 13.06.2025. The delay is fatal the prosecution case. According to the postmortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. Further, 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. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the cases of Nipun Aneja and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2017, decided on 03.10.2024, and Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. The State of Maharashtra and others, Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-2185 of 2024, decided on 18.08.2025. It is next contended that identically placed co- accused Nandlal has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 16.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 36084 of 2025. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vijay Prakash Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Amit Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) The applicant claims parity. Investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant is in jail since 14.06.2025 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the first information report was lodged belatedly. 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. Identically placed co-accused Nandlal has been granted bail by this Court. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than four 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- Amit Kumar, 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 29, 2025 Lbm/- BAIL No. 37586 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad