HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31505 of 2025 Court No. - 50 HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the applicant is taken in the record. Matter is taken up in the revised call. This is the second bail application. By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 186 of 2024 at Police Station Mau, District Chitrakoot under Sections 354, 306 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 24.06.2024. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 17.09.2024. The following arguments made by Shri Sujan Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Suchit Tandon, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail: 1. The applicant and the victim resided in the same village and went to school together. Over the years they developed a fondness for each other. 2. The intimacy of the applicant and the deceased became a subject matter of gossip in the village and the deceased was Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dhananjay Shukla, Sujan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rangilal .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) subjected to taunts and pressures from her family members. The family of the deceased was opposed to her relationship with the applicant. 3. The deceased was a sensitive person who became depressed on account of constant chiding of her family members. 4. On the fateful day, the deceased succumbed to depression and took the extreme step of ending her life. She committed suicide by hanging. 5. The postmortem report opines that the cause of death is asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. 6. Injuries depicted in the postmortem report consistent with hanging are: (i). Nature of ligature mark. (ii). No abnormality was detected in the hyoid bone. 7. The applicant did not aid or abet the suicide. 8. The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case. 9. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending. In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Rangilal be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court BAIL No. 31505 of 2025 2 below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial. (ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023). The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties, or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant. September 15, 2025 Jaswant BAIL No. 31505 of 2025 3 (Ajay Bhanot,J.) Digitally signed by :- JASWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad