HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29438 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Copy of the postmortem report produced by Sri Nagendra Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State is taken on record. 2. Heard counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State-opposite party and perused the material available on record. 3. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 104 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 324(4), 110 and 105 B.N.S., Police Station- Dildarnagar, District- Ghazipur, during the 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, eight named accused are alleged to have assaulted the informant and his family members. In the alleged incident the son of the informant received grievous injuries. The son of the informant succumbed to the injuries on 6/7.6.2025. As per the postmortem report, the deceased received five antemortem injuries. The cause of death is due to 'cranio cerebral damage as a result of blunt force trauma/surface impact'. The injuries sustained by the other injured were simple in nature. The name of the applicant was subsequently disclosed by the informant in his statement under Section 180 B.N.S.S. It is contended that the said statement is an afterthought and discredits the prosecution case. Vague and general allegations have been levelled against the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender who caused head injuries to the deceased. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant is in jail since 17.6.2025 and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Chandra Shekher Singh, Vivek Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vinod Kumar Ram .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) said liberty. 5. Learned AGA 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; his name was subsequently disclosed by the informant in his statement under Section 180 B.N.S.S.; as per the postmortem report, the deceased Rakesh Ram received five antemortem injuries; the cause of death is due to cranio cerebral damage as a result of blunt force trauma/surface impact. The injuries sustained by the other injured were found simple in nature. Vague and general allegations have been levelled against the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender who caused head injuries to the deceased. Further, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained confined for more than four months and after submission of charge sheet 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 delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 7. Let the applicant Vinod Kumar Ram, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions that he: (i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; (ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses. 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 Manish Kr BAIL No. 29438 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad