HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31652 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State- opposite party and Sri Rahul Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sudhanshu Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for informant. 2. The instant bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.21 of 2025, under Section 105 B.N.S., Police Station Baburi, District Chandauli during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The alleged hospital was registered in the name of co-accused Reema. The applicant is the husband of co-accused Reema. As per the Medical Board constituted by the Chief Medical Officer, Chandauli, the deceased was operated by co-accused Reema. It is contended that the applicant has no role in the alleged incident. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from that of co-accused Reema. The applicant is in jail since 22.08.2025 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned AGA and learned counsel for informant have 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 alleged hospital was registered in the name Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akshay Kumar Shukla, Saurabh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sudhanshu Kumar Mishra Sanjay Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) of co-accused Reema. As per the Medical Board constituted by the Chief Medical Officer, Chandauli, the deceased was operated by co-accused Reema. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant has remained confined for more than one month 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. 6. Let the applicant Sanjay Kumar, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his 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; 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 7, 2025 Radhika BAIL No. 31652 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad