Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42985 Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6854 of 2025 Applicant :- Hariom Dwivedi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Avinash Shukla,Ajeet Kumar,Jyoti Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Supplementary Affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. The accused-applicant seeks bail in FIR/Case Crime No. 0167 of 2025, under Sections 221, 352, 351(3), 121(1), 132, 121(2), 109, and 324(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Paraspur, District Gonda. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that in compliance with the order passed during Samadhan Diwas on 24.05.2025, the complainant, who is a trainee Lekhpal, along with Sesh Narayan, Deepak Yadav (Lekhpal), and the police team, reached the spot to investigate and measure submerged land. It is also alleged that at about 3:00 p.m., the applicant-accused, Hari Om Dwivedi, arrived at the scene and started interfering with the official work. He allegedly stated that he would allow them to carry out their duties only if they agreed to measure all the ponds of the village. When the government officials present on the spot tried to persuade him, the accused allegedly began hurling abuses and extended threats to the complainant. When Constable Nishant Singh attempted to intervene, the accused allegedly assaulted him and tried to hit him with a lathi. As the constable caught hold of the lathi, the accused allegedly pushed him. When the constable fell down, the accused, with the intention to kill, allegedly climbed on him and began strangling him. During the incident, the constable's uniform was torn and his badge was broken and chaos was created on the spot. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that, in fact, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant’s wife against the revenue team, which is pending consideration. It is further contended that the injuries sustained by the alleged victims, Indresh Verma and Nishant Singh, are simple in nature in the form of swelling and contusions and are self-inflicted. The applicant has duly explained his criminal history, which consists of a single case, as mentioned in paragraph 17 of the bail application. There is no independent witness to the alleged incident. It is also argued that no offence under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is made out. The applicant is in judicial custody since 25.05.2025. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the facts mentioned above. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record. On due consideration of the facts that the applicant is in jail since 25.05.2025; prima facie there does not appear to be any independent witness to the incident; the applicant has explained his criminal history which consists of a single case; and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds it to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Hariom Dwivedi be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below 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 229-A of the IPC (now Section 269 BNS). (vi) 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. (now 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 174-A of the IPC (now Section 209 BNS). Order Date :- 25.7.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench