HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31482 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 applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 323 of 2026, under Sections 105, 352, 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station- Rudrapura, District- Deoria during pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the allegations contained in the first information report, the applicant, along with two other accused persons, is alleged to have pushed the informant's father, as a result of which, he sustained internal injuries. He was taken to the hospital immediately, where he died. As per the postmortem report, no antemortem injury was seen. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death could not be ascertained. Viscera was preserved for chemical examination and whole heart was preserved for histopathological analysis. It is contended that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution case. The death of informant's father cannot be attributed to the alleged incident. Further, identically placed co-accused Brigunath Yadav and Rahul Yadav have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 24.8.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.29885 of 2026. Applicant claims parity. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 2 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 14.7.2026 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Syed Riyaz Askari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Baijnath Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Learned A.G.A. for the State has 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 medical evidence does not support the prosecution case. Further, identically placed co-accused Brigunath Yadav and Rahul Yadav have been granted bail by this Court. Moreover, the applicant has presently remained confined for more than one and half month 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 applicants, 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 applicants are entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant, Baijnath 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: 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 Manish Kr BAIL No. 31482 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad