HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9950 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nagendra Kumar Mishra, learned Brief Holder for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record. 2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 250 of 2026, under Sections 115(2), 352, 105 of B.N.S., Police Station- Mohammadabad, District- Farrukhabad, 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 06.08.2025, whereas the first information report was lodged on 10.8.2025. The delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. Placing reliance upon the statements of the independent witnesses namely, Pravesh Kumar and Sudhakar Yadav it is contended that the applicant and the deceased were friends and there was no enmity between them. On the date of incident both had consumed liquor. The incident had occurred at the spur of the moment without any premeditation. The applicant neither had the requisite knowledge nor any intention to commit the alleged offence. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Criminal antecedents of the applicant has been explained in paragraph-19 to the rejoinder affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 12.8.2025 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Lavkush Kumar Bhatt Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Anil .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 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 first information report has been lodged belatedly. As per the statements of the independent witnesses namely, Pravesh Kumar and Sudhakar Yadav, on the date of incident the applicant and the deceased consumed liquor and the incident had occurred at the spur of moment without any premeditation. At this stage, there is no credible evidence to establish that the applicant had the requisite knowledge or intention to commit the alleged offence. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than one year and a month 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 the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant Anil, 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. September 30, 2026 Manish Kr BAIL No. 9950 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad