HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15743 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Praveen Kumar Singh, counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.P. Tripathi, 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. 37 of 2026, under Sections 105, 351(3), 191(2), 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station- Jangipur, District- Ghazipur, during the pendency of 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 9.3.2026 at 9.30 p.m. The son of the informant died on 10.3.2026 at 7.00 a.m. The first information report was lodged on 10.3.2026 at 9.40 hours on the basis of information allegedly furnished by two persons, namely, Sagar Rajbhar and Krishna Bind. It is contended that the delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. As per the allegations contained in the first information report, the informant is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. The name of the applicant surfaced subsequently in the statement of the informant recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. Thereafter, the witnesses Sagar Rajbhar and Krishna Bind in their respective statements also alleged that apart from two named accused, the applicant along with two others was also involved in the alleged incident. Had the applicant actually been involved in the alleged occurrence, his name would have found mention in the first information report itself. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Deepak Kumar Pandey, Udai Shankar Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Praveen Kumar Singh Ritik Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 11.3.2026 having no criminal antecedents and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned AGA 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. The name of the applicant surfaced subsequently in the statement of the informant recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. Had the applicant actually been involved in the alleged occurrence, his name would have found mention in the first information report itself. 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 two 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 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 Ritik Kumar, 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. May 14, 2026 Manish Kr BAIL No. 15743 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad