HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9152 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. Supplementary Affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. In the FIR, it is alleged that the informant along with her husband and son had gone to attend the marriage of her cousin sister-in-law at Krishna Marriage Lawn, Bariyawan (Asauvapar). Around 12:30 a.m., the informant and her husband got a photograph clicked on the stage, after which the informant became busy in the marriage ceremony. At about 2:30 a.m., the village Pradhan informed the informant that her husband was lying injured in front of Hiralal Yadav's house and was being taken to the hospital. The informant reached Medical College, Sadarpur, where doctors were attending to her husband, who, however, succumbed to his injuries at around 5:30 a.m. The informant further alleged that on 06.05.2025, during the marriage of Tribhuwan Yadav's daughter, a verbal spat had taken place between Raj Yadav and his father Sajeevan Yadav, which was later settled amicably as it was a village matter. However, the informant alleged that her husband was murdered by Anurag Yadav @ Raj Yadav, Abhishek Yadav, Anshbal @ Dabbou, Nandan along with some other persons and the conspiracy was hatched by Rakesh Yadav and Sajeevan Yadav. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that before his death, while in an injured condition, the deceased gave two statements which are on record as Annexure Nos. 10 and 12. In one statement, videographed, the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nijam Ahamad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Avinash Verma .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) deceased mentioned that Raj and 7-8 persons had beaten him. In another statement (Annexure No. 12), he named Raj and Nandan Yadav. Notably, the deceased never named the present applicant at any stage. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accused persons namely Ayush Yadav, Ram Sajeevan and Ajeet Yadav have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 11.9.2025, 27.08.2025 and 19.9.2025, therefore, he seeks parity with the bail order of the said co- accused. 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. Learned AGA, however, opposed the bail application, submitting that in his confessional statement, the accused admitted to the offence. He has also submitted that the deceased's brother Jitendra Yadav has not taken the name of Ram Sajeevan who has been granted bail bail by this court vide order dated 27.8.2025, however, he has assigned general role to the applicant, Ajeet Yadav and Ayush Yadav of causing injury to the deceased. In response, learned counsel for the applicant argued that the alleged confessional statement made in police custody is not corroborated by any recovery and, therefore, is inadmissible. On due consideration to the fact that general role has been assigned in the statement of the brother of the deceased Jitendra Yadav and in two statements of the deceased name of the applicant is missing coupled with the facts that the applicant is in jail since 16.5.2025; the applicant has explained the criminal history in the bail application as well as in the supplementary affidavit, this Court finds it to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the ground of parity. Let the applicant Avinash Verma involved in Case Crime No. 139/2025, Under Section: 3(5), 140(1), 103(1), 238, B.N.S., Police Station Kotwali Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar, 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:- BAIL No. 9152 of 2025 2 (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). 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 23, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S BAIL No. 9152 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench