HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2100 of 2026 Court No. - 66 (Sr. No.125 out of 150) HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.83 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 3(5) BNS, Police Station Koshi Kala, District Mathura, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about twelve days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The applicant is stated to be the paramour of main accused person Smt. Aarti. He has nothing to do with the said offence. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that no postmortem examination of the dead body of the deceased was conducted. The deceased got electrocuted, as such, was cremated. The applicant has simply been made an accused on the basis of CDR, whereby presence of applicant and co- accused Smt. Aarti alongwith the deceased person was found within the area of one and the same tower. The said CDR does not indicate that applicant was present at the place of occurrence. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shivang Shukla, Shubhang Shukla Puspendra @ Pawan .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 6. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the statement of son of the deceased person has been recorded as an afterthought after a delay of 16 days from the incident, i.e. on 3.2.2025. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 2.2.2025. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of FIR and there being no postmortem examination report and even the statement of son of the deceased person having been recorded after a delay of 16 days from the incident, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant- Puspendra @ Pawan, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required. 10. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits. March 18, 2026 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 2100 of 2026 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad