Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:122576 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6342 of 2023 Applicant :- Sunil Kumar @ Lamha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava,Bipin Kumar Jaiswal,Prasoon Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ajay Pandey,G.A. Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the F.I.R. was lodged against two persons including the applicant with the allegation that on the date of occurrence when informant's brother was walking in the street at about 8:00 p.m. the co-accused Mangal Sahu called him. The informant's brother reached there where the applicant was also standing there along with his motorcycle and after sometime when the informant and his uncle heard cries they reached their and they saw in the light of street bulb that the co- accused Mangal Sahu was catching hold to the informant's brother and the applicant was inflicting knife blows to him. Learned counsel further submits that in the alleged occurrence the deceased sustained as many as seven injuries and he succumbed to death. He further submits that though in the F.I.R. as well as in the statements of informant and one eye witness it has been specifically stated that these two witnesses saw the occurrence in the light of street electric pole but in the site plan prepared there is no mention about the existence of electric pole at the place of occurrence and as per prosecution case the incident occurred at about 8:00 p.m. in the month of September, then there must have been darkness without there being existence of any source of light as per the site plan, therefore, it appears doubtful that those two eye witness actually saw the occurrence. Thus, it appears that applicant has falsely been implicated in the case with malicious intention. Learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn attention of this Court to the order sheet of the trial court annexed with the supplementary affidavit dated 03.04.2025 and submits that more than three years have passed and out of 16 witnesses only four witnesses have been examined, therefore, the trial would take some more time. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 23.09.2021, with no previous criminal antecedent. 3. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail, but they could not dispute the above submissions made on behalf of applicant. 4. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view, that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 5. Let applicant-Sunil Kumar @ Lamha, involved in Case Crime No. 232 of 2021, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Pipari, District Kaushambi, be enlarged on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. (ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. 6. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail in accordance with law. 7. The bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 Mustaqeem. Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad