HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 165 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on the date of incident at around 9:30 p.m., the complainant went to demand his wages from the named accused persons. At that point, the accused allegedly started hurling abuses and physically assaulted the complainant. When his brother Satish, Harish and cousin Sujeet came to rescue, they were also beaten by the accused. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that First Information Report was lodged after an unexplained delay of six days. It is further submitted that in the statement of the deceased (during his lifetime), a general role has been attributed to all the four accused persons without any specific overt act. 4. Referring to the postmortem report, learned counsel submits that the deceased, Ajeet Kumar, sustained two ante-mortem injuries :- "1. A contused swelling of size 12 cm x 9 cm present at mid occipital region of skull on opening underneath bone found fractured and subdural haematoma present all over brain. 2. An abrasion 7 cm x 1 cm present on right arm, 4 cm below shoulder joint." Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sachin Verma, Kunwer Dhananjay Singh, Praveen Kumar Pandey, Shishir Pradhan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vyas Narayan Shukla Chhotelal .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) 5. It is submitted that the cause of death is the ante-mortem head injury, i.e, Injury No.1. However, the prosecution case does not clearly specify who inflicted the fatal injury. 6. It is also submitted that applicant has explained the criminal history of one case in the supplementary affidavit. The injured witnesses have also made general allegations against all accused without attributing specific roles to the applicant. 7. It is further submitted that co-accused Jiyalal has already been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13000 of 2024 to which applicant seeks parity. The applicant is in jail since 22.10.2024. 8. It is submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application and submits that co-accused Jiyalal was not named in the F.I.R., and therefore, the case of the present applicant is not one of parity. It is contended that correct facts were not placed before the Co-ordinate Bench while granting bail to the said co-accused. Hence, the bail application is liable to be rejected. 10. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the material on record, including the general nature of the allegations made by the deceased during his lifetime, the statements of the two injured witnesses, the nature of ante-mortem injuries, and the fact that the applicants have been in custody since 22.10.2024, and further, that the charge sheet has already been filed, and it is not prima facie clear from the prosecution case as to who caused the fatal injury, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicants on bail. 11. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant-Chhotelal involved in Case Crime/FIR No.256 of 2024, U/S-115(2), 352, 324(4), 333, 3(5), 191(2), 105 B.N.S, P.S-. Jagatpur, District - Raebareli be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court BAIL No. 165 of 2025 2 concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) 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. 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. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with law. (vi) 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. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the 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 IPC (now Section 209 of BNS). 13. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. August 28, 2025 Saurabh Yadav/- BAIL No. 165 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench