Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:26081 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44949 of 2024 Applicant :- Sanjeev Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Umendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Heard counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State- opposite party. Perused the material available on record. 2.The instant bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.153 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 452, 504, 506, 120-B of I.P.C., Police Station Phatehganj East, District Bareilly, during the pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. As per the allegations in the First Information Report, eleven persons including the applicant are alleged to have assaulted the uncle of the informant (Virendra) and brother of the informant (Deepu). No injury report with regard to injured Deepu is available in the case diary. So far as injured Virendra is concerned, he has received eight injuries. In the statement of the injured Virendra, a vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as principal offender who caused injury to the injured. The applicant does not have any criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 24.06.2024 and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this Court prima facie finds that in the statement of the injured Virendra, a vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as principal offender who caused injury to the injured. Further, the applicant has remained confined for almost eight 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 merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant Sanjeev, involved in the aforesaid case crime 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: (i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; (ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses. 7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 24.2.2025 S.S. Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad