HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9071 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State as well as Shri Vikas Sharma, learned Advocate, who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant, which is taken on record. 2. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 27.04.2025 at about 7:00 a.m. in my village, Nandlal son of Mangli Pasi, along with Ramsagar, Sarvesh, and Santosh, all sons of Nandlal, owing to enmity regarding the vacation of occupied land, started hurling abuses at us. When we resisted, they assaulted us with kicks, fists, sticks, and rods. My daughter-in-law, Rinki, who attempted to intervene, was also beaten. Thereafter, when my husband, Rajbahadur, aged about 60 years, came forward to protect us, he too was mercilessly beaten with sticks and rods. Hearing the commotion, several villagers arrived and intervened, upon which the aforesaid accused left the spot after threatening to kill us. As a result of the assault, my husband sustained grievous head injuries. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of the Court to the postmortem report, which indicates that the deceased died due to septicemia arising from antemortem head injury. The death occurred 26 days after the incident. The report shows one injury on the body of the deceased, which has been bifurcated into three injuries. A general role has been assigned to four named accused persons for causing that single head injury, which eventually led to septicemia and the death of the deceased. 4. It is further submitted that there was neither intention nor premeditation to cause the death, and further, the prosecution has not specified who among the accused inflicted the fatal blow. The prosecution case is Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Neeraj Sahu Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ram Sagar .....Applicant(s) The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) doubtful, as both Rinki and Kamla, who are cited as injured witnesses, were not medically examined. It is also contended that the applicant himself sustained six injuries, which are on record along with SA-3, and he has lodged a cross FIR, registered as Crime No. 56/2025. The applicant is in custody since 14.06.2025 and has no criminal antecedents. 5. It is next submitted that co-accused persons namely Nand Lal and Sarvesh have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 9.9.2025 and 16.9.2025, therefore he seeks parity with the bail order of the said co- accused. 6. 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. 7. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application. Learned AGA submits that the postmortem report has bifurcated one injury into three, and the deceased had suffered only one injury. 8. On due consideration to the facts that the applicant has no criminal antecedents; general role has been attributed to him for the fatal injury, the prosecution has not clarified who actually caused the fatal blow, the injured witnesses Rinki and Kamla were not medically examined, the applicant seeks parity with the bail order of the co-accused named above and further, the applicant is in custody since 14.06.2025, I find it a fit case for granting bail to the applicant. 9. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the ground of parity. 10. Let the applicant Ram Sagar involved in Case Crime No. 173 OF 2025, U/S-115(2), 352, 351(3), 103(1) B.N.S., P.S.-Tandiyawan, District- Hardoi, 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 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 BAIL No. 9071 of 2025 2 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 22, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S BAIL No. 9071 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench