HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33291 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. None is present on behalf of the informant even in the revised call. 2. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 65 of 2025, under Sections 109, 115(2), 351(2), 352, 103, 191(2), 191(3), 190, 324(5), 326(G), 3(5), 333 of BNS, Police Station - Bachharaun, District - Amroha, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant along with co-accused person Ritik is stated to have assaulted and caused injuries to the informant and his mother and father, respectively on 8.3.2025 at about 05:30 PM. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The allegations are per se false. The prosecution story stands falsified from the fact that the informant had subsequently roped in 17 more accused persons and has completely shaken the entire story. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that the co-accused persons, who were not named in the FIR and nominated by the applicant subsequently, have already been enlarged on bail, as such, the applicant is also entitled for bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.03.2025, having no Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dr. Kamlesh Kumar, G.A. Anil .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 7. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR is too prompt as it was instituted within 54 minutes of the offence. The applicant and co-accused person have assaulted and caused the death of one person and have seriously injured two more persons i.e. informant's mother and father, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the promptness of FIR coupled by the fact that the applicant was named in the FIR in which one person has expired and two have sustained injuries, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. 11. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. October 9, 2025 Siddhant BAIL No. 33291 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad