Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45305-DB Court No. - 10 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1585 of 2025 Appellant :- Raj Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Affairs Lko. Counsel for Appellant :- Umesh Chandra,Desh Raj Chaurasiya Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J. 1. Heard Shri Umesh Chandra, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the respondent. 2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 03.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, NIA/ Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 2616 of 2025, C.N.R. No. UPLKO10062532025 (Raj Srivastava Vs. State), arising out of F.I.R. No. 88 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 191(2), 115(2), 190, 191(3), 324(4), 351(3), 352 B.NS. read with Section 4/5 Explosive Substance Act, P.S. Govind Nagar, District Kanpur, by means of which, the bail application was rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to some quarrel, which had taken place in between the parties, on account of which, the F.I.R. has been lodged from the side of appellant. It is further submitted that in the said incident, both the sides have suffered injuries. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that though a CCTV footage of the incident has been found, but the appellant has not been recognized in the said CCTV footage. It is also submitted that no particle of exploded bomb has been found from the site. It is also submitted that without considering all these facts, the bail application has been rejected by the Special Judge, NIA, Lucknow by means of the impugned order. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant, who is in jail since 16.03.2025, is entitled for bail. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent, though opposes the prayer for bail, but could not contradict the aforesaid submissions. 5. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the record as well as the fact that there are cross cases, in which, both the sides have suffered injuries and there is no criminal history of the appellant, we are of the view that a case for bail is made out and the impugned order dated 03.05.2025, which has been passed without considering the aforesaid facts, is liable to be set aside. 6. Impugned order dated 03.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, NIA/ Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 2616 of 2025, C.N.R. No. UPLKO10062532025 (Raj Srivastava Vs. State), arising out of F.I.R. No. 88 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 191(2), 115(2), 190, 191(3), 324(4), 351(3), 352 B.NS. read with Section 4/5 Explosive Substance Act, P.S. Govind Nagar, District Kanpur is hereby set aside. 7. The appeal stands allowed. 8. Let appellant, Raj Srivastava be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :- (i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will 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. (ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their 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. (iii) In case, the appellant 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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. Order Date :- 5.8.2025 VKS Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench