HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39198 of 2022 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State- respondents and perused the record. 2. This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant- Pankaj @ Shankar seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 740 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 323, 302, 307 IPC, Police Station Gulawati, District Bulandshahar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is languishing in jail since 25.11.2021. It is submitted that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant. It is further submitted that eye-witness Payal @ Pooja in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has assigned specific role of firing to the applicant, however she failed to prove her presence on the place of occurrence. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for. 4. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dinkar Lal, Hemant Sharma, S.M.Faraz I. Kazmi, Sikandar Khan, Sudhanshu Pratap Singh, Swetashwa Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Abhishek Tiwari, Alok Yati, Arvind Kumar Singh, G.A., Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay Pankaj @ Shankar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) adjudged at pre-trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. It is further submitted that, in case the applicant is released on bail, he may again indulge in similar activities and misuse the liberty of bail. 5. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677, dictum of Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 & Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. (ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned. (iv) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement of accused personally to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. (v) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him strictly, in accordance with law. 6. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail by the trial court. BAIL No. 39198 of 2022 2 7. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. March 19, 2026 Virendra BAIL No. 39198 of 2022 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR BHARTEEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad