HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36592 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Suneel Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ankur Jaiswal, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 177 of 2025, under Sections 131, 118, 103(1), 109(1) of BNS, Police Station - Jahanaganj, District - Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have assaulted and committed the murder of informant's son Amit by a sharp-edged weapon and had also caused injuries to Sudarshan and Jitendra on 27.05.2025 at about 07:30 PM. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that the allegations are per se false. There are several inconsistencies in the statement of all the witnesses. The applicant himself has sustained four injuries and there is no explanation of the said injuries caused. The case is of sudden provocation, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Suneel Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ritesh Rajbhar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 7. Learned counsel has further contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 29.05.2025, having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR is not delayed by one day rather it is about eleven and a half hours. In the instant case, there are two injured persons and one deceased, as such, the informant first rushed to the hospital to save the life of injured persons and thereupon the FIR has been instituted. The said two injured persons and other inmates of the house have categorically nominated the applicant to be the perpetrator of crime, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, severity of punishment and also taking into consideration the fact that there are ocular statements of injured persons including the informant, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 10. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 11. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements 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. 12. 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 Siddhant BAIL No. 36592 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad