HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33341 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard Ms. Kritika Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shikhar Tandon, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, 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. 389 of 2026, under Section 105 B.N.S., Police Station- T.P. Nagar, District- Meerut, during pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 12.07.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on 16.07.2026, under Section 103(1) B.N.S. The inordinate delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. During the course of investigation Section 103(1) B.N.S. was deleted and the case was converted under Section 105 B.N.S. The informant is the brother of the deceased and he is not an eye-witness to the alleged incident. As per the allegations contained in the first information report, the deceased, while in an injured condition, informed his mother that the applicant had assaulted him with a pointed object. According to the postmortem report, the deceased had sustained five injuries. In the opinion of the Doctor the cause of death is shock and hemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries. It is contended that mother and father of the deceased, in their statements recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., did not allege that the applicant had assaulted the deceased. It is contended that the applicant has been implicated only on the basis of suspicion. At this stage, there is no Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shikhar Tandon Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Harsh @ Golu .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 16.07.2026 having no criminal antecedents and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned AGA 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 first information report has been lodged belatedly. The informant is not an eye-witness to the alleged incident. The mother and father of the deceased, in their statements recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., did not allege that the applicant had assaulted the deceased. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Further, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has presently 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 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, Harsh @ Golu, 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 18, 2026 Abhishek BAIL No. 33341 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma, J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad