HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24975 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Himanshu Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 100 of 2026, under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 64(1) of the B.N.S., Police Station- New Agra, Commissionerate Agra, District- Agra, during pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is the brother of co-accused Pramod Kumar and has been falsely implicated in the present case. A matrimonial dispute exists between the co-accused Pramod Kumar (husband) and the informant (wife). The instant prosecution is only for the purpose of harassment. The applicant had not acted indecently with the informant/ victim.The incident is alleged to have occurred on 21.01.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on 18.03.2026. Inordinate delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. The victim refused to get her internally examined. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 07.05.2026 having no criminal history. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Brijesh Kumar Pal, Girish Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Himanshu Mishra Yogesh Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 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. A matrimonial dispute existed between co-accused Pramod Kumar (husband) and the informant (wife). 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 four 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, Yogesh Kumar 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: 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 8, 2026 Abhishek BAIL No. 24975 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma, J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad