Ankit Jatav Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30522 of 2025

Ankit Jatav

Court No. - 64

¶6

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P.Tripathi, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 59 of 2025, under Section 108 BNS, Police Station Sikanderpur Vaishya, District Kasganj during the pendency of trial.

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to the postmortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem handing. As per the allegations in the first information report and the material collected during investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. The applicant, in no manner, abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. In support of his submission, counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Mahendra Awase vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 2025) decided on 17.01.2025 and Laxmi Das vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 706 of 2017) decided on 21.01.2025. The applicant is in jail since 10.06.2025 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

BAIL No. 30522 of 2025

2

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than four 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 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.

Let the applicant Ankit Jatav, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his 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: