HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8545 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for the complainant. 2. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 23.05.2025 at 10:00 p.m., while his brother Narsingh Bahadur Singh, and nephews Nitin Singh and Atul Singh were sitting at their house, accused Shiv Bahadur Singh, Ankit Singh, Mohit Singh, Rohit Singh, Balram Singh, along with two unknown persons, armed with lathi, danda, and iron rods, entered the house with intent to kill and assaulted them. When Narsingh Bahadur tried to rescue, he was attacked with an iron rod and fell unconscious. The informant, his brother, and nephew sustained grievous injuries. On their alarm, villagers gathered, witnessed the incident, and intervened. The accused abused them, threatened with dire consequences, and fled. Narsingh Bahadur was taken to the hospital in an unconscious condition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution has levelled general allegations of assault with sticks, lathi, danda, and iron rod upon the deceased. Out of the seven assailants, five have been named and two remain unidentified. The present applicant is not named in the FIR. While recording his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which consists of two parts, the complainant did not name the applicant in the first part. Only in the second part he stated that the applicant was also involved in the incident. However, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ramakar Shukla, Yaduvansh Mani Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Bheem Singh, Brij Bhushan Singh, Pranjal Apurva, Sandeep Kumar Mishra Sonu Singh .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) no specific role has been assigned to him. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. 4. It is further submitted that there are cross cases filed by both sides. From the applicant’s side, two persons also sustained injuries, and their injury reports are on record. Recoveries of bamboo sticks have been made only from co-accused Mohit, Rohit, and Balram. Cause of death is antemortem head injury due to coma. There are two other injured persons as well. It is also submitted that one of the injured persons from the applicant’s side was referred for x-ray. The prosecution has failed to explain the injuries sustained by the applicant’s side. 5. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned AGA have opposed the bail application, contending that the deceased sustained ten antemortem injuries, four of which were on the head. They also pointed out that there are two other injured persons from the complainant’s side. 7. Having considered the submissions and the facts that the applicant is not named in the FIR; in the complainant’s first statement the applicant was not mentioned, and though in the second part of his statement he did name the applicant, no specific role was attributed to him; the charge sheet has already been filed; the applicant’s case appears to be distinguishable from that of the co-accused; no recovery has been made from him and he is in jail since 26.05.2025, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case for granting bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant Sonu Singh involved in case crime No. 77/2025, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 333, 352, 351(3), 109(1), 103, 61(2) BNS, P.S. Udaipur, District Pratapgarh, be released on bail 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 which are being imposed in the BAIL No. 8545 of 2025 2 interest of justice:- (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 in accordance with law. (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 IPC (now Section 209 of BNS). 10. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. September 11, 2025 R.C. BAIL No. 8545 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench