Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41018 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5456 of 2025 Applicant :- Mohd.Airaf Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Srivastava,Avinash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Lalji Yadav,Vineet Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Ji, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and learned counsel for the informant. 2. Learned Additional Government Advocate has filed the counter affidavit, today in the Court, the same is taken on record. 3.As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Mohd.Airaf) is languishing in jail since 04.09.2024 in Case Crime No. 136 of 2024, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 504, 506, 302 IPC, Police Station-Raniganj, District-Pratapgarh. 4.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the First Information Report (in short F.I.R.). 5.The prosecution story in nutshell is that the aunt (Bua) of the informant, namely, Naseen Bano was forcibly residing near his house and several times, she was asked to go her house but she did not leave the same and ultimately, on 18th of April, 2024 at about 5:00 p.m., Naseen Bano, Naseem, Khurseed, Javed, Mahtab, Altaf, Airaf came to the house of the deceased and started abusing and when the same was objected by the father of the informant, the accused persons, including the present applicant started assaulting him and on alarm being raised, the eye witnesses, namely, Hameeda, Shifa, Farheen and Akbarunnisha came for rescue but in between, the accused persons pushed down the deceased/father of the informant, namely, Nazame Hasan and he was taken to hospital where he died on 19th of April, 2024. 6.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that seven persons are named in the FIR including the applicant and no specific allegation has been levelled against the present applicant. He added that the FIR is delayed by two days but no plausible explanation is given regarding the same. He also submits that even if the allegation made in the FIR is assumed as correct, no such intent is borne out that the same resulted into a murder of a person. He also added that no fatal weapons are used in the alleged offence and, prima facie, the injuries are also apparent that the same have been inflicted because of the fact that he fell down himself. He also submits that incident occurred on spur of moment and there is no intent to commit murder. He next submits that the applicant has criminal history of two cases, which has been explained in Para-32 of the bail application in which the applicant has been granted bail. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the co-accused, namely, Altaf, has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 25.06.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12 of 2025. Therefore, on the basis of principles of parity, the present applicant may also be released on bail. The bail order dated 25.06.2025 is taken on record. He also submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the matter, as such there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper the evidences or would threaten the witnesses. Concluding his argument, learned counsel submits that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted by this Court, and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 8.On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel appearing for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant by submitting that the applicant is involved in committing the offence and he is named in the First Information Report. They further submit that there are eye witnesses of the incident, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for any relief, but they could not dispute the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the applicant. 9.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that the FIR is delayed by two days and no plausible explanation is given therefor; no weapons are used in the alleged incident; the complainant is not the eye witness as he was in Bombay at the time of the said incident; the learned counsel for the applicant has also argued that both the eye witnesses are not independent eye witnesses, as they are wife and daughters of the deceased; the applicant has criminal history of two cases, which has been explained in para-32 of the bail application, in which he has been granted bail; the co- accused, Altaf, has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 25.06.2025 (supra); the charge-sheet has been filed in the matter, coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. 10.Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed. 11.Let the applicant (Mohd. Airaf) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:- (i) 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. (ii) 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 229-A IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) 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./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 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/208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv) 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./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant 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. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. . [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Order Date :- 17.7.2025 Suresh/ Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench