HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1067 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. A perusal of the record shows that this bail application is pending since February, 2025. On 23.7.2025, the matter was adjourned at the instance of learned counsel for the complainant. Again an illness slip has been received on behalf of learned counsel for the complainant. Considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 15.9.2024, this Court is not inclined to entertain the illness slip sent by learned counsel for the complainant. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.484 of 2024, under Sections 352, 191(2), 191(3), 103(1) of BNS, P.S. Sushant Golf City, District Lucknow. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that all the three independent witnesses have assigned general role of assault to five accused persons including the present applicant. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. He submits that co-accused Neetu and Man Bhara, who were assigned the general role, have been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court as well as by this Court vide orders dated 29.05.2025 and 12.8.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 4801 of 2025 and 3295 of 2025 respectively, with which the applicant seeks parity. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 15.09.2024 having no criminal Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Atul Verma, Akhilendra Pratap Singh, Mohd Agha Haider Rizvi, Vinod Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shailendra Singh Shatrohan .....Applicant(s) The State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) history. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that applicant has been assigned the role of having axe in his hand and thus, his case is different from the co-accused Neetu. A perusal of the post mortem report shows that following ante mortem injuries has been suffered by the deceased:- "1. LACERATED WOUND 02 CM X 02 CM X MUSCLE DEEP PRESENT ON LEFT EAR. 2. LACERATED WOUND 03 CM X 01 CM X BONE DEEP PRESENT ON LEFT SIDE BACK OF HEAD, 03 CM POSTERIOR TO LEFT EAR. 3. CONTUSION 08 CM X 06 CM PRESENT ON LEFT SIDE OF HEAD, JUST ABOVE THE LEFT EAR 4. ABRADED CONTUSION 02 CM X 02 CM PRESENT ON LEFT SIDE OF FACE, 03 CM BELOW LEFT EYE. 5. ABRADED CONTUSION 03 CM X 02 CM PRESENT ON LEFT SIDE OF NECK, 04 CM BELOW LEFT EAR LOBULE." In the opinion, cause of death is Coma due to ante mortem head injury. In the post mortem report, out of five ante mortem injuries, two are lacerated wounds rest are contusion and abraded contusion. All these injuries can be caused by both weapon i.e., danda and axe. On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 15.09.2024 having no criminal history, bail orders of co-accused named above, from the prosecution case prima facie it is not clear as to who has caused the fatal blow, no specific allegation against the applicant, it is not disputed between the parties that examination of P.W.1 is going on, till date even examination of one prosecution witness is not complete so also the judgment passed in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another : Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 and without expressing BAIL No. 1067 of 2025 2 any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail on the ground of parity. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Shatrohan be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions: (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 him 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 under Section 269 of BNS. (vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under 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 209 BNS. August 27, 2025 Shravan BAIL No. 1067 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench