HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30118 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manvendra Singh, counsel for the informant and Sri Anupam Anand, learned Brief Holder 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. 55 of 2025, under Sections 108 & 324(2) BNS, 2023, Police Station- Asothar, District- Fatehpur during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. 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. It is next submitted that identically placed co-accused Smt. Khushbu Devi has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 7.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.31564 of 2025. The applicant claims parity. Charge-sheet has been filed. The applicant is a lady and is in jail since 07.07.2025 having no criminal history and in case she is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned Brief Holder for the State-respondent as well as the counsel for Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Kumar Tiwari, Ram Yash Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Manvendra Singh Smt Maya Devi .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) the informant 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 necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. Identically placed co- accused Smt. Khushbu Devi has already been granted bail by this Court. Further, the applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant has remained confined for more than three 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 Smt. Maya Devi, 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. 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. 30118 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad