HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25289 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Despite time having been granted to the learned AGA on 25.9.2025 to produce viscera report of the deceased, no report has been produced. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 126 of 2025, under Section 105 B.N.S., Police Station- Kotawali Fatehgarh, District- Farrukhabad during pendency of the trial. 4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant neither runs any medical clinic nor administered any injection to the wife of the informant. The applicant has no concern with the alleged occurrence. As per the postmortem report, cause of death could not be ascertained and the viscera was preserved and sent for chemical analysis. Viscera report is not part of the case diary. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 27.5.2025 having no criminal history. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 5. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arun Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Anjesh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Court prima facie finds that as per the postmortem report, cause of death could not be ascertained and the viscera was preserved and sent for chemical analysis. Viscera report is not part of the case diary. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for more than eleven 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. 7. Let the applicant, Anjesh 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. 8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. May 5, 2026 S.S. BAIL No. 25289 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad