HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32795 of 2026 Court No. - 66 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State- opposite party. Perused the material available on record. 2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 91 of 2026, under Sections 316(2), 3(5), 61(2), 108/56 B.N.S., Police Station- Kotwali Lalitpur, District- Lalitpur, during the pendency of the trial. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. On the basis of information furnished by an informer, the name of the applicant surfaced. The applicant neither demanded, threatened nor received any money from the informant. The applicant is not the beneficiary of any illicit transaction. Further, the alleged victim is alive. In absence of any death by suicide, the basic and foundational requirement for an offence under Section 108 BNS is conspicuously absent. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to connect the applicant with the offence. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para No. 18. The applicant is in jail since 10.4.2026 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. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aditya Prakash Singh, Mayank Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Jitendra Singh .....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 applicant was not named in the first information report. The name of the applicant surfaced during the course of investigation. The essential ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 BNS are not made out. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to connect the applicant with the offence. Further the applicant has remained confined for more than five months and after submission of charge sheet 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 Jitendra Singh Yadav involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on 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; (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. September 15, 2026 Kumar Manish BAIL No. 32795 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad