HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31599 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard 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. 32 of 2026, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 105 B.N.S., Police Station- Tarya Sujan, District- Kushinagar during pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 5.2.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on 12.2.2026. The inordinate delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. As per the postmortem the deceased sustained six injuries. Four injuries were found on the head region, whereas the other injuries were on other parts of the body. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death is coma due to antemortem head injuries. As per the allegations contained in the first information report, on the instigation of co-accused Baikhar, the applicant along with four accused assaulted the brother-in-law of the informant (since deceased). Placing reliance upon the statement of the independent witnesses namely Chattu Sah, it is contended that the brother-in- Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ankita Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Awadhesh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) law of the informant, while riding a motorcycle, collided with the applicant and two others. Thereafter, the applicant and other persons assaulted him. He sustained injuries and died while being taken to the hospital. It is contended that a vague and general allegation has been levelled against the applicant. The applicant had neither the requisite knowledge nor had any intention to commit the offence. Identically placed co-accused Meena Devi has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 30.6.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21146 of 2026 (Meena Devi vs. State of U.P.). The applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 18.2.2026 having no criminal history. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned A.G.A. for the State 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. A vague and general allegation has been levelled against the applicant. Identically placed co- accused Meena Devi has been granted bail by this Court. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for almost seven 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, Awadhesh 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; BAIL No. 31599 of 2026 2 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 16, 2026 S.S. BAIL No. 31599 of 2026 3 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad