HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8049 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. 2. The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.216 of 2025 under Section 105, 115(2), 352, 351 (2) BNS, Police Station Mailani, District Lakhimpur Kheri. 3. In the FIR it is alleged that on 23.05.2025 at about 8:00 p.m., some villagers were sitting and conversing near the house of Sundar Lal. At that time, Ranjit and Mukesh were seated on a plastic chair belonging to Sundar Lal. As both of them sat on the chair together, it broke. On this, Sundar, Vipin, Bhure, and Laxmi became enraged and started abusing Ranjit. When Ranjit objected to their abuse, accused Vipin struck him on the head with a stick. Hearing Ranjit’s cries, the complainant’s husband Jageshwar, her mother-in-law Samkora, Meera Devi, and Kanti Devi rushed to save him. At that point, the four accused persons namely Sundar, Vipin, Bhure, and Laxmi assaulted all of them with sticks, causing serious injuries to Jageshwar, Samkora, Meera Devi, and Kanti Devi. On hearing the commotion, other villagers gathered and tried to intervene, whereupon the accused fled the scene, threatening to kill them. The injured were taken by ambulance to the Government Hospital, Bankeganj, from where Jageshwar and Samkora Devi were referred to the District Hospital at Lakhimpur due to the seriousness of their injuries. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Janendra Kumar Verma, Uday Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Bhure @ Shreedev .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) Unfortunately, while being transported to the District Hospital, Jageshwar succumbed to his injuries on the way. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the cause of death in the postmortem report is shock and hemorrhage due to antemortem injuries. The deceased suffered three antemortem injuries. It is submitted that although five persons are said to be injured in this case but all are suffered simple injuries. General role of causing injuries have been assigned to all the accused persons except Vipin. Vipin has been assigned the role of causing fatal injury on the head of the injured. The applicant has been assigned general role. Co-accused Laxmi, who has been assigned similar role, has been granted bail by coordinate bench of this court vide order dated 1.8.2025 (Annexure-16 to the bail application). The applicant has no criminal antecedents. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the facts mentioned above. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record. 7. On due consideration of the facts that the applicant has no criminal antecedents; the allegations made in the prosecution case are of a general nature; no specific role has been assigned to the applicant; the applicant has been in jail since 25.05.2025; the incident in question appears to have erupted all of a sudden on account of a trivial issue; and considering that co-accused have already been granted bail, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant Bhure @ Shreedev 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 BAIL No. 8049 of 2025 2 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). August 27, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S BAIL No. 8049 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench