Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15810 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2336 of 2025 Applicant :- Suraj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Karunesh Singh,Vijay Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Karunesh Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Punit Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for the State and perused the records. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 288 of 2022, under Sections 304/504 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Banthara, District Lucknow. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 02.10.2022 alleging that while the informant's father had gone to market at about 1.00 p.m. on 02.10.2022 the applicant demanded money from him for consuming liquor and when he declined the applicant assaulted him with stick due to which he died on the spot. The postmortem examination report shows three abraded contusions on the dead body but the cause of death could not be ascertained and whole heart was preserved for histopathological examination. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of bail application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history. The stick allegedly used in commission of offence has been recovered from the place of occurrence. Three prosecution witnesses have been examined and copies of their statements have been annexed with the bail application. PW-1 is the informant who has not claimed himself to be an eye witness of the incident. PW-2 Vimal Saini is said to be an eye witness of the incident. In his examination-in-chief he stated that he was present at the time of incident but in his cross- examination he stated that at the time of incident he was not present at his shop. PW-3 Shibu Khan is also said to be an eye witness and he has also been examined. He stated that the informant Mohd. Salim was present at the time of incident. The witness Mohd. Salim has not claimed himself to be present at the time of incident. 5. The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter. 6. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the witnesses of fact have already been examined; that applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 04.10.2022 and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime. 7. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed. 8. Let the applicant-Suraj be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court. (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) Order Date :- 19.3.2025 Ram. Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench