HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10144 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rupak Chaubey, 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. 283 of 2025, under Sections 125, 352, 351(2), 105 B.N.S., Police Station- Kundarki, District- Moradabad 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 12.09.2025, whereas the first information report was lodged 16.09.2025, under Sections 125, 352, 351(2), 34(1) and 34(2) B.N.S. The husband of the informant died on 02.10.2025. The delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. It is contended that the applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. No medical procedure or treatment was provided by the applicant to the deceased. Further, during the course of trial, the informant, who is the wife of the deceased, was examined as P.W.-1, has not supported the prosecution version and has been declared hostile by the trial court vide order dated 16.06.2026. The testimony of the aforesaid prosecution witness is annexed as Annexure No.SA-1 to the second supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 13.01.2026 having no criminal history 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mukul Yadav, Rajesh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Amitosh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 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 prosecution witnesses Mamta, P.W.1 (informant) has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile by the trial court. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than eight 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 merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant Amitosh, 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 23, 2026 Abhishek BAIL No. 10144 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma, J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad