HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28470 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit as well as Vakalatnama filed by Sri Mohit Singh, Advocate on behalf of the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Mohit Singh, counsel for the applicant; Sri Ashish Goyal, counsel for the informant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record. 3. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 354 of 2024, under Sections 318(4), 105 B.N.S., Police Station- Gunnaur, District- Sambhal, during the pendency of the trial. 4. 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. As per the first information report, the wife of the applicant was admitted in a hospital known as 'R.K. Hospital' and she was treated by co-accused Dr. Himanshu Yadav and his wife. The wife of the informant died due to negligence of the named accused persons. The name of the applicant was disclosed by the informant after three months of the alleged incident. It is contended that the applicant has been implicated on account of political rivalry. Reliance has also been placed on the statement of sister-in-law of the informant-Smt. Ganga Devi to contend that the deceased was treated by a nurse and two ladies. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para no.2 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 15.7.2025 and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 5. Learned AGA and counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sarvajeet Singh Dharmendra @ Dharmveer .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report; his name was disclosed by the informant after three months of the alleged incident; as per the statement of sister-in-law of the informant-Smt. Ganga Devi, the deceased was treated by a nurse and two ladies. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than two and half months and 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. 7. Let the applicant Dharmendra @ Dharmveer, 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. 8. 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. 28470 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad