HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32274 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit, filed by the counsel for the applicant, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 333 of 2021, under Sections 302, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station- Jhinjhana, District- Shamli during pendency of the trial. 4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the first information report the role of firing has been assigned to the named accused Sunny Saini. The name of the applicant was subsequently disclosed in the second statement of the informant. During the course of trial, the informant was examined as PW 1 and the eye witnesses of inquest proceedings namely, Pavan and Ishwar Singh were examined as PW 2 and PW 3. The said prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution version and have been declared hostile. Copy of the statements of aforesaid witnesses Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Shyam Shanker Pandey, Subodh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mahipal .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) are collectively annexed as Annexure 3 to the bail application. It is next contended that named accused Sunny Saini has been granted bail by the co-ordinate bench of this court vide order dated 13.5.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28317 of 2024 (Sunny Saini vs. State of U.P.). The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 6 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 8.8.2021. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 5. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report. As per the first information report the role of firing has been assigned to the named accused Sunny Saini. The name of the applicant was subsequently disclosed in the second statement of the informant. During the course of trial, the informant was examined as PW 1 and the eye witnesses of inquest proceedings namely, Pavan and Ishwar Singh were examined as PW 2 and PW 3. The said prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution version and have been declared hostile. The named accused Sunny Saini has been granted bail by the co-ordinate bench of this court. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for more than four years and two months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 7. Let the applicant, Mahipal involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that: BAIL No. 32274 of 2025 2 i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness; iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court. 8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. October 27, 2025 S.S. BAIL No. 32274 of 2025 3 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad