HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37270 of 2025 Court No. - 70 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State- respondents and perused the record. 2. This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicants Rohit and Shyam Sunder seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.193 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 190, 109, 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 333, 352 B.N.S., Police Station Chhata, District Mathura. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the accused-applicants have not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and have been falsely implicated in this case. Applicants are languishing in jail since 12.9.2025. It is submitted that accused persons Vipin, Jeetu alongwith 8-10 unknown persons are named in the FIR wheres applicants are not named in the FIR and no specific and separate role regarding causing firearm injury has been assigned to applicants in this case. It is further submitted that the injured Parshuram has specifically assigned the role of causing firearm injury to co- accused persons Vipin and Jeetu whereas injured Dharmendra and Jainarayan have not specifically stated the role and involvement of applicants but general role of applicants have been assigned. It is argued that applicants have different role from that of other co-accused persons Vipin and Jeetu, who are named in the FIR. It is further argued that applicant no.1 has no criminal antecedents whereas applicant no.2 has criminal history of two cases which have been explained in supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of their fleeing from course of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sushil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sukrampal, Tikendra Pratap Singh Rohit And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for. 4. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail but could not dispute the aforesaid submission. 5. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024, (SC) LawSuit 677 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicants involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:- (i) The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. (ii) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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. (iii) The applicants shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against them under Section 229-A IPC/269 BNS. (iv) In case the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of BNSS is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against them in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC/209 of BNS. (v) The applicants shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 of B.N.S.S. If in the BAIL No. 37270 of 2025 2 opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicants is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. 6. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 7. Identity and residence proof of the applicants and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. October 29, 2025 RA BAIL No. 37270 of 2025 3 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad