HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31527 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anupam Anand, 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. 190 of 2025, under Section 105 B.N.S., Police Station- Farenda, District- Maharajganj during pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 12.6.2025. The first information report was lodged on 27.6.2025. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. The name of the applicant was subsequently disclosed by the wife of the deceased. It is contended that the said statement is an afterthought and it discredits the prosecution case. According to the postmortem report, the deceased sustained four antemortem injuries. One injury was on the head and other injuries were on other parts of the body. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death is coma due to antemortem head injury. The applicant has not been nominated as a principal offender, who caused the head injury to the deceased. It is next contended that the case of the applicant is distinguishable from that of named co-accused Rajendra Chaudhary. The applicant is in jail since 29.6.2025 having no criminal history. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned Brief Holder for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Piyush Patel, Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pradeep Alias Anoop Chaudhary Alias Makanchu .....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 applicant was not named in the first information report. The delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. The name of the applicant was subsequently disclosed by the wife of the deceased. According to the postmortem report, the deceased sustained four antemortem injuries. One injury was on the head and other injuries were on other parts of the body. The applicant has not been nominated as a principal offender, who caused the head injury to the deceased. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death is coma due to antemortem head injury. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from that of named co-accused Rajendra Chaudhary. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for more than three 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, Pradeep @ Anoop Chaudhary @Makanchu involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his 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 14, 2025 S.S. BAIL No. 31527 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad