Niraj Kumar Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31933 of 2025

Niraj Kumar

Court No. - 64

¶6

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri N.K.Sharma, 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. 129 of 2025, under Sections 108, 238(a) BNS, Police Station Kandhala, District Shamli during the pendency of trial.

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. At the time of alleged incident, the applicant was at his work place at District Panipat, Hariyana. In this regard reliance has been placed on the report of the Investigating Officer at page 46 of the paper book. Further, 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 Nipun Aneja and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2017) decided on 03.10.2024 and Abhinav Mohan Delkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others (Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-2185 of 2024) decided on 18.08.2025. The applicant is in jail since 29.03.2025 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

BAIL No. 31933 of 2025

2

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

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 six 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 Niraj Kumar 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: