HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29308 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the counsel for the applicant, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Hitesh Kumar Mishra, counsel for the informant and Sri V.P.Tripathi, learned AGA for the State- respondent. 3. The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 206 of 2025, under Section 108 BNS, Police Station Sujanganj, District Jaunpur during the pendency of 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. The name of the applicant surfaced during the course of investigation. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death could not be ascertained. Viscera was preserved and sent for chemical analysis. Viscera report is still awaited. It is next contended that 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashok Kumar Singh, Pratibha Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Bateshwar Nath Dubey, G.A., Hitesh Kumar Mishra, Rakesh Chandra Pathak Sunita .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Bengal and Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 706 of 2017) decided on 21.01.2025. The applicant is a lady and is in jail since 06.08.2025 having no criminal history and in case she is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the said liberty. 5. Learned AGA and the counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for 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 necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than two 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 the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 7. Let the applicant Sunita, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions that she: (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. 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 Lbm/- BAIL No. 29308 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad