HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26872 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri Shiv Shankar Kaithal, counsel for the informant and Sri Shashank Shekhar Pandey, learned AGA for the State- opposite party. Perused the material available on record. 2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 116 of 2025, under Section 108 B.N.S., Police Station- Rura, District- Kanpur Dehat, during the pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the uncle of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. 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. In support of his submission, counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Mahendra Awase vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.221 of 2025) decided on 17.01.2025 and Laxmi Das vs. The State of West Bengal and others (Criminal Appeal No.706 of 2017 decided on 21.01.2025. Investigation has been completed. Charge sheet has been filed. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant is in jail since 24.04.2025 and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned AGA and counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rakesh Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shiv Shankar Kaithal Pawan Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Court prima facie finds that 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. Further, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained confined for more than five months and after submission of the charge sheet 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 delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant Pawan Kumar, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the 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; (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 8, 2025 Manish Kr BAIL No. 26872 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad