HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26632 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party. 2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 115 of 2025, under Sections 61(2), 238(A), 351(2), 105 B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Hayatnagar, District Sambhal during the pendency of the trial. 3. Learned 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 14.03.2025. The first information report was lodged by the husband of the deceased on 27.04.2025 under Sections 76, 108 B.N.S. against Raju, Vikki and 2-3 unknown persons. The name of the applicant was disclosed by named co- accused Raju on 18.05.2025 in the police custody. As per the statement of co-accused Raju, the deceased was assaulted by the applicant and co- accused Virendra. The deceased was first examined by Dr. Chandraveer and thereafter she was admitted in DSR Hospital. No medical report of the deceased is available in the case diary. Only pathology report of the deceased is available. Subsequently, in the second statement of the informant the applicant was also named. It is contended that the said statement is an afterthought. The applicant has no role in the alleged incident. At this stage there is no credible evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant is in jail since Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aushim Luthra, Harishchandra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Jaypal .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 23.05.2025 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report; the incident is alleged to have occurred on 14.03.2025 and the first information report was lodged by the husband of the deceased on 27.04.2025 under Sections 76, 108 B.N.S. against Raju, Vikki and 2-3 unknown persons; the name of the applicant was disclosed by named co-accused Raju on 18.05.2025 in the police custody; no medical report of the deceased is available in the case diary except pathology report; and, at this stage there is no credible evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than four months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and 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, therefore, 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- Jaypal, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of 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; and, (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 7, 2025 SKT/- BAIL No. 26632 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad