HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31702 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the counsel for the applicant, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State- opposite party. 3. 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.149 of 2025, under Section 105, 110 B.N.S., Police Station Ratanpuri, District Muzaffarnagar during the pendency of trial. 4. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the first information report. He is the owner of the alleged Scorpio vehicle. It is a case of accident. The applicant was not driving the alleged vehicle rashly. He had no intention to cause the death of Mohd. Savej. As per the medical report, the cause of death was due to septicemia as a result of multiple organ failure. It is next contended that at this stage, there is no credible evidence to establish that prior enmity exists between the parties. The applicant is in jail since 26.07.2025 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 5. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Onkar Singh, Pankaj Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rahul Baliyan .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Court prima facie finds that as per the medical report, the cause of death was due to septicemia as a result of multiple organ failure. At this stage there is no substantive evidence that the applicant had an intention to cause death of Mohd. Savej. Further the applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant has remained confined for more than two 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. 7. Let the applicant Rahul Baliyan, 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. 8. 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. 31702 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad