HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30289 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri Navneet Kumar Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, counsel for the informant and Sri Nagendra Mishra, learned AGA for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record. 2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 257 of 2025, under Sections 108, 351(2) B.N.S., Police Station- Fatehganj West, District- Bareilly, during the pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the allegations in the first information report and the material collected during the course of investigation, 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 judgement 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 others (Criminal Appeal No.706 of 2017 decided on 21.01.2025. Investigation has been completed. Charge sheet has been filed. The applicant is a lady and has no criminal antecedents. The applicant is in jail since 27.6.2025 and in case, she is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned AGA and counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vijay Kumar, Vimal Kant Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Jitendra Kumar Yadav Raj Kumari .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this Court prima facie finds that as per the allegations in the first information report and the material collected during the course of investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. Further, the applicant is a lady and has no criminal antecedents and has remained confined for more than three 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. 6. Let the applicant Raj Kumari, 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 she: (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. 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 9, 2025 Manish Kr BAIL No. 30289 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad