HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9138 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record. 2. Heard Ms. Pooja Singh, counsel for the applicant and Sri Rupak Chaubey, learned AGA for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record. 3. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 219 of 2025, under Sections 123, 105 B.N.S. and 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station- Chhajlet, District- Moradabad, during the pendency of trial. 4. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 08.12.2025, whereas the first information report was lodged on 10.12.2025. The delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. False recovery of alprazolum tablets has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. It is next contended that the applicant was never employed by the owner of the alleged food-outlet (dhaba) and the applicant has no connection with the alleged incident. As per the post-mortem report, cause of death could not be ascertained. Viscera was preserved and sent for chemical analysis. As per the viscera report dated 10.12.2025, alprazolum (tranquilizer) poison was found. It is next contended that the applicant did not mix any intoxicating substance in the food of the deceased and that in order to save the owner of the alleged foot outlet the applicant has been implicated. At this stage, there Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pooja Singh, Rajesh Yadav, Sushil Kumar Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rajeev Giri .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 11.12.2025 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 Court prima facie finds that the first information report has been lodged belatedly. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Moreover, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained confined for more than nine 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 Rajeev Giri, 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. September 30, 2026 Manish Kr BAIL No. 9138 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad