HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9375 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.249 of 2025 under Section 191(2), 191(3), 103(1), 115(2) and 109(1) BNS, Police Station Kotwali Ayodhya, District Ayodhya. It is alleged that on the date of incident, accused Hanuman sped away in his Scorpio vehicle bearing registration no. UP 42 Z 2500. While driving, Hanuman also opened fire from the moving vehicle. He deliberately rammed the Scorpio into the motorcycle of the victims, as a result of which the bike was knocked down a short distance away from their village. Even after the victims fell from the motorcycle, accused Hanuman along with Mohan, Ramjanma, Rajan, Rohit and three to four unknown associates alighted from the Scorpio and continued to assault the injured with intent to kill. Hearing the sound of gunfire and alarm raised by the victims, nearby villagers rushed towards the spot. On seeing the gathering crowd, the accused persons abandoned their vehicles and fled from the place of occurrence. Thereafter, someone from the crowd informed the informant?s family over phone about the incident. On reaching the spot, the informant was told that the accused persons had murdered his son Nikhil. The other two injured Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rakesh Pathak, Sandeep Soni, Vijay Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mohan Nishad .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) boys were found in a very serious condition and were immediately referred from Ayodhya to Lucknow Medical College for further treatment. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a perusal of the inquest report reveals that it is, in fact, a case of road accident. The inquest proceedings also record an opinion pointing towards accidental injuries. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death has been shown as shock and hemorrhage as a result of antemortem injuries. It is further contended that the alleged injured persons, namely Kunal alias Chandu and Nitesh Yadav, have not sustained any injury, which falsifies the prosecution version that they were referred to Lucknow and admitted there for treatment. No medico- legal examination or treatment papers of the alleged injured have been brought on record. It is next submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant fleeing away from justice or tampering with the witnesses. In case he is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty so granted. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but has not been able to dispute the factual aspects highlighted by the counsel for the applicant. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, including the inquest and postmortem report, which show that the deceased sustained antemortem injuries resulting in shock and hemorrhage. It is not disputed that there is no medico-legal examination or treatment record of the two alleged injured persons. On due consideration of the inquest report, the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased, the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant has no criminal antecedents, and that he is in jail since 11.6.2025, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Mohan Nishad 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 satisfaction of the court below BAIL No. 9375 of 2025 2 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). September 26, 2025 kkb/ BAIL No. 9375 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench