Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1626 of 2025 Applicant :- Bhaiya Lal Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,D.K. Singh Chauhan Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. Vakalatnama filed by Sri D.K. Singh Chauhan, learned counsel on behalf of the complainant is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the D.K. Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.54 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 323, 325, 452, 307, 308 I.P.C., P.S. Atrauli, District Hardoi. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that initially, the applicant including one co-accused has received firearm injuries and the F.I.R. was lodged and in retaliation thereof, present F.I.R. has been lodged by the informant. He added that no specific role has been assigned to the present applicant and identically situated co- accused persons Santosh Yadav, Pappu Yadav and Guni Ram Chaurasiya have already been enlarged on bail by this Court as well as co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.12093 of 2022, 12096 of 2022 and 2322 of 2023, vide orders dated 31.10.2022, 31.10.2022 and 15.2.2023 respectively and the applicant is seeking parity of the same. He further submits that there is no criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 20 of the bail application and the applicant is languishing in jail since 20.1.2025 and in case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate in the trial proceedings. Learned counsel for the complaint vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and he is involved in committed the offence but he could not dispute the fact that identically situated co-accused have already been enlarged on bail this Court as well as coordinate Bench of this Court. Learned A.G.A. has also supported the version of the learned counsel for the complaint and submitted that the applicant is involved in committing the aforesaid offence, as such, he is not entitled to be released on bail. But he also could not dispute the fact that identically situated co-accused have already been granted bail by this Court as well as the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that initially, the applicant including one co-accused has received firearm injuries and the F.I.R. was lodged and in retaliation thereof, present F.I.R. has been lodged by the informant; no specific role has been assigned to the present applicant; identically situated co- accused Santosh Yadav, Pappu Yadav and Guni Ram Chaurasiya have already been enlarged on bail by this Court as well as co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.12093 of 2022, 12096 of 2022 and 2322 of 2023, vide orders dated 31.10.2022, 31.10.2022 and 15.2.2023 respectively; there is no criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 20 of the bail application; the applicant is languishing in jail since 20.1.2025; and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail if granted and would co-operate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail. Let the applicant Bhaiya Lal Yadav involved in the aforementioned 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, with the following conditions:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) 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. He 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 229-A of the Indian Penal Code; (3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and (4) 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. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 3.3.2025 Ram Murti Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench