Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:101285 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19380 of 2025 Applicant :- Surendra Bharti Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Surendra Mohan Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sandeep Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.559 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85, 115(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Nichlaul, District- Maharajganj, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. It is a clear cut case of false implication as the occurrence is of 30.10.2024 and the deceased expired on 5.11.2024. The FIR itself is delayed by about 12 days from the date of occurrence and about six days from the date of death of the deceased person and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the inquest proceedings were undertaken the same day and the informant is Panch witness no.2 in the said proceedings. The informant was very much present at the time of her death and at the stage of inquest proceedings, but he has not whispered a single word against the applicant. The cause of death has been found to be asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. 6. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.11.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the delay in institution of FIR coupled by the fact that informant was very much present at the time of her death and at the stage of inquest proceedings, but he has not whispered a single word against the applicant, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant- Surendra Bharti, who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 11. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad