HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24956 of 2025 Along with : 1. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7954 of 2025: Lokesh Versus State of U.P. Court No. - 70 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today in court in the present case by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Shri Yogendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for the informant is not present despite order of this court dated 24.02.2026. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State- respondent and perused the record. 4. This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant, Lokesh seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.361 of 2024 under Sections 117(3), 109 and 3(5) BNS (under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 118(2), 351(2), 117(2) and 110 BNS in the connected matter), P.S.- Behsuma, District- Meerut, during pendency of trial. 5. Tersely, as per allegation contained in the FIR, the accused-applicant and co-accused persons have caused injury with hard and blunt object to the injured Rakesh and Munesh. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the accused- applicant is named in the FIR but either in the FIR or in the statement of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhishek Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Yogendra Pal Singh Lokesh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) the injured persons, no specific and distinct role has been clearly assigned to the accused-applicant regarding causing injury. Furthermore, amputation in the leg of the injured Rakesh was done due to gangrene. He submits that the amputation is not caused by the accused-applicant and during the course of medical treatment, the amputation was done by the concerned doctor medically. He further submits that fracture is noted in the lower half of shafts of tibia and fibula, which is on the non-vital part of the body of the injured Rakesh. He further submits that cross case is also pending being Case Crime No.360 of 2024 and both the parties sustained injuries. Five persons from the accused side have also sustained injury. Furthermore, the accused-applicant has criminal history of one case, which has been explained in para 2 of the supplementary affidavit and he is in jail since 04.02.2025. Furthermore, as per submission of learned AGA, chargesheet has already been filed in this case. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Having considered the submissions that though the accused-applicant is named in the FIR alongwith four other co-accused persons but either in the FIR or in the statement of the injured persons, no specific and distinct role has been clearly assigned to the accused-applicant. The injured persons, Rakesh and Munesh stated general allegation against all the accused persons in their statements recorded before the IO. Cross case is an admitted fact. As per submission of learned AGA, chargesheet has already been filed in this case on 10.03.2025 and as per learned counsel for the applicant, charge has also been framed, and, thus, there is no reasonable possibility of intimidating and pressurizing the prosecution witnesses. Accused-applicant is in jail since 04.02.2025 and keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement BAIL No. 24956 of 2025 2 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677, dictum of Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 & Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. (ii) 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. (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned. (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 of accused personally to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. (v) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him strictly in accordance with law. 9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail by the trial court. 10. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. March 19, 2026 Ankit. BAIL No. 24956 of 2025 3 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANKIT VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad