HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32646 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nagendra Mishra, learned Brief Holder for the State-opposite party. 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.192 of 2025, under Sections 105, 115(2), 117(2), 131, 351(3), 352 B.N.S., Police Station- Rudrapur, District- Deoria during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 29.05.2025. The first information report was lodged on 01.06.2025 with a delay of three days. As per the postmortem report, the informant (since deceased) received two injuries on non vital parts of the body. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was due to 'septic shock' as a result of ante mortem injuries. It is next contended that identically placed co-accused Vikram has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 15.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.24756 of 2025. The applicant seeks parity with the said co-accused. The applicant is in jail since 06.06.2025 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned Brief Holder has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rampratap Yadav, Vinay Kumar Jaiswal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sanni Yadav Alias Chanchal Yadav .....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 first information report has been lodged belatedly. As per the postmortem report, the informant (since deceased) received two injuries on non vital parts of the body. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was due to 'septic shock' as a result of ante mortem injuries. Identically placed co-accused Vikram has already been granted bail by this Court. Further, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained confined for almost four 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 Sanni Yadav @ Chanchal Yadav, 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 Prachi BAIL No. 32646 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRACHI KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad