HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27950 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record. Learned counsel for the applicant does not propose to file rejoinder affidavit. 3. Heard Sri Shams Uz Zaman, learned counsel for applicant, Sri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohammad Amil Ansari, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.301 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 351(2), 352, 109, 115(2), 191(3), 191(2) B.N.S., Police Station Singhawali Aheer, District Baghpat with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith co-accused persons is stated to have assaulted and caused injuries to the wife of the informant and his sister-in-law on 5.11.2024. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The applicant is stated to have carried a Fawada, but it is a clear cut case of false implication as no time of offence is mentioned in the FIR. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 12.11.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shams Uz Zaman Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ambreen Masroor, G.A., Sadrul Islam Jafri Krishna Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that it is an open and shut case as the applicant is one of two main accused persons. The injured person has categorically stated that applicant had inflicted the injuries to the deceased person causing her death, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that applicant is named in the FIR and even the injured person has nominated him to be the author of main injury caused to the deceased person, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. 11. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. October 27, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 27950 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad