HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30036 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 89 of 2025, under Sections 105, 115(2), 351(2), 352 B.N.S., Police Station- Nichlaul, District- Maharajganj during pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 5.4.2025. The first information report was lodged on 7.4.2025. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. The informant died on 8.7.2025 and the postmortem was conducted on 9.4.2025. As per the first information report, the applicant along with three named accused is alleged to have assaulted the informant (now deceased). According to the postmortem report, the cause of death is hemorrhagic shock and coma due to antemortem injuries. It is contended that a vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as a principal offender, who caused injury to the deceased. Further, identically placed co-accused Ramesh @ Umesh Rajbhar and Golu @ Rakesh Rajbhar have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 9.9.2025 and 1.9.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 30664 of 2025 and 24082 of 2025 respectively. The applicant does not have any criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 10.4.2025. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Piyush Patel, Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Suresh Rajbhar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 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 counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. A Vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as a principal offender, who caused injury to the deceased. Identically placed co-accused Ramesh @ Umesh Rajbhar and Golu @ Rakesh Rajbhar have been granted bail by this Court. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further, the applicant has presently remained confined for almost six 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 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, Suresh Rajbhar involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that: i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness; iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court. 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 S.S. BAIL No. 30036 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad