HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10381 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA 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. 05 of 2026, under Section 105 B.N.S., Police Station- Kheta Sarai, District- Jaunpur, during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 16.5.2025. The inquest proceedings were conducted on the same day. The informant was one of the inquest witnesses. In the opinion of the inquest witnesses, the daughter of the informant died due to her bad health. As per the post-mortem report, the deceased sustained two injuries. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death is due to haemorhhage shock as a result of ante-mortem head injury. An application under Section 175(3) BNSS was filed before the competent court on 9.6.2025. The first information report was lodged on 6.1.2026 under Section 103(1) and 64 B.N.S. The inordinate delay in moving the application under Section 175(3) BNSS is fatal to the prosecution case. During investigation, sections 103(1), 65 BNS were deleted and the case was converted under Section 105 BNS. The name of the applicant surfaced in the statements of the witnesses namely, Irfan Ahmad and Jeenat. As per their statements, no role of assault has been assigned to the applicant. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from that of named accused Kaleem. At this Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anand Pratap Singh, Pushpendra Kumar Yadav, Shreya Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sonu Khan Alias Sameer Khan .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 12.2.2026 having no criminal history 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 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 applicant was not named in the first information report. There is inordinate delay in moving the application under Section 175(3) BNSS. The name of the applicant surfaced in the statements of the witnesses namely, Irfan Ahmad and Jeenat. As per their statements, no role of assault has been assigned to the applicant. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Moreover, the applicant has no criminal history and has remained confined for more than seven 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 Sonu Khan Alias Sameer Khan, 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. 10381 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad