HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9064 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State, as well as perused the record. The accused-applicants seek bail in Case Crime No.216 of 2025 under Sections 105, 115(2), 352, 351(2) BNS, Police Station Mailani, District Lakhimpur Kheri. 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 Devi, 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. Unfortunately, while being transported to the District Hospital, Jageshwar succumbed to his injuries on the way. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the cause of death in the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Janendra Kumar Verma, Uday Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sunder And Another .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) 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, all suffered only simple injuries. A general role in causing injuries has been assigned to all the accused persons. Co-accused Laxmi, who has been assigned a similar role, has been granted bail by a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 01.08.2025 (Annexure-16 to the bail application). The other co- accused Bhure @ Shreedev has also been granted bail by this court vide order dated 27.8.2025 (Annexure-17 to the bail application). The applicants have no criminal antecedents, and no specific role has been assigned to them. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicants but could not dispute the facts mentioned above. Learned counsel for the complainant, while opposing the bail prayer, submitted that a specific role in causing injury has been attributed to Applicant No. 2, Vipin in relation to the injured Ranjit. Replying to this argument, learned counsel for the applicants submits that Ranjit has suffered only simple injuries. The general role, in causing injury to the deceased, has been assigned to all the accused persons. It is further submitted that it is a case of parity. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. On due consideration of the facts that the applicants have no criminal antecedents; the allegations made in the prosecution case are of a general nature; no specific role has been assigned to the applicants; the applicants have 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 persons namely Laxmi and Bhure @ Shreedev have already been granted bail as also considering the injury received by the Ranjit and the general role assigned to all the accused persons in the statements of the witnesses 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 applicants on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. BAIL No. 9064 of 2025 2 Let the applicants, Sunder and Vipin, be released on bail in the aforesaid first information report number subject to their furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below, with the following conditions: (i) The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicants will not pressurize or intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer, or tamper with the evidence. (iv) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 the liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (v) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A IPC (now Section 269 BNS). (vi) In case the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during the trial and, in order to secure their presence, a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and they fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC (now Section 209 BNS). September 22, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) BAIL No. 9064 of 2025 3 Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench