HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28253 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shiv Shankar Kaithal, counsel for the informant and Sri V.P.Tripathi, learned AGA for the State- respondent. 2. The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 294 of 2025, under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(2), 108 BNS, Police Station Uttar, District Firozabad during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the postmortem report, the deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. As per the allegations, 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 judgements 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 Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 706 of 2017) decided on 21.01.2025. The applicant is in jail since 15.05.2025 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned AGA and the counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Tej Om Prakash Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shiv Shankar Kaithal Deepak Upadhyay .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 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 Court prima facie finds that at this stage there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant has remained confined for almost 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 the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant Deepak Upadhyay, 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 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; 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 Lbm/- BAIL No. 28253 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad