Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116816 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23012 of 2025 Applicant :- Aniket Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. Heard Shri Rajiv Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Purshottam Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record. This bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accused- applicant, Aniket, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 669 of 2024, under Sections 108, 115 (2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Kotwali Karwi, District Chitrakoot. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused- applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 17.5.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after 55 days of incident, FIR has been lodged against the applicant. There is no explanation for delay in lodging the FIR. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that except the statement of first informant, there is no evidence on record to establish the fact that applicant abated the deceased to commit suicide. There is mention about the audio recording, but the same has not been made part of investigation by the Investigating Officer, as of now. Only in Majeed statement of first informant annexed at Page 60 of the bail application, he said that he made available the audio recording to the earlier Sub Inspector during investigation. Further in the question put up to the first informant "Whether your wife had told you that she consumed the poison and why?", he replied that "Sir, when I reached at the home on the day of incident, she was vomiting and thereafter, she became unconscious, due to this she could not tell me anything". Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the FIR, the applicant had got scribed that in the hospital, his wife told him that on account of behaviour of applicant she had consumed the poison. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that thus, there is variation in the statement of first informant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Section 108 of BNS would not attract against the applicant. In order to substantiate his submission, he has placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Prabhu versus State rep. by the Inspector of Police, reported in 2024 (0) Supreme (SC) 896. He has one criminal antecedent, which has sufficiently been explained and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. Considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the accused-applicant, Aniket, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence. 2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity. 3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial. 4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 Ravi Prakash (Ashutosh Srivastava, J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad