HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34758 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record. 2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 192 of 2026, under Section 108 B.N.S., Police Station- Jasrana, District- Firozabad during pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits 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 3.4.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on 6.4.2026 under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, 1961. The delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. During the course of investigation the name of the applicant surfaced. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the applicant under Section 108 B.N.S. Further as per the allegations in the first information report, CDR of mobile phone of the deceased and the material collected during the course of the investigation, the essential ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S., are not made out against the applicant. The mere allegation of telephonic conversations between the applicant with the deceased, in absence of any positive act of instigation, intentional aid, or proximate conduct compelling the deceased to commit suicide, would not constitute the offence of abetment to suicide. In support of his submission, counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sunil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vishal Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Nipun Aneja and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2017) decided on 03.10.2024 and Abhinav Mohan Delkar vs. The State of Maharashtra and other (Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-2185 of 2024) decided on 18.8.2025. It is next contended that the husband of the deceased has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 32484 of 2026 (Brijpal @ Sopali vs. State of U.P.). The applicant is in jail since 27.6.2026 having no criminal history. Investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned A.G.A. for the State and counsel for the informant have 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 first information report has been lodged belatedly. The applicant was not named in the first information report. During the course of investigation the name of the applicant surfaced. As per the allegations in the first information report, CDR of mobile phone of the deceased and the material collected during the course of the investigation, the essential ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S., are not made out against the applicant. The husband of the deceased has already been granted bail by this Court. There is no proximate or direct act attributable to the applicant that could be construed as instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid to the commission of suicide. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant has presently remained confined for more than three months 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 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, Vishal Yadav involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that: BAIL No. 34758 of 2026 2 i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness; iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court. 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 S.S. BAIL No. 34758 of 2026 3 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad