HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35643 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Mohd. Shabbir, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.131 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 352, 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station Bithari Chainpur, District Bareilly with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith co-accused person Prem Shanker @ Neshu is stated to have assaulted the deceased person with handle of the hand-pump, lathi and danda, thereby caused grievous injuries to the brother of the informant Dharmvir and also assaulted the informant on 13.03.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the informant was not present at the place of occurrence, which is but evident from the fact that he was admitted in hospital and was discharged with no fresh complaints on 14.03.2025. The said discharge slip has been filed as annexure no.4 to the affidavit accompanying the bail application. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that it cannot be assigned as to who was the author of the injury caused on the forehead of the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jitendra Singh, Mohd. Shabbir, Mohd. Tasleem, Sudarshan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Khayaliram .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) deceased person. There is only one fatal injury. The other injuries are not grievous in nature. The applicant is in jail since 18.03.2025 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that as per G.D. entry, the internal injuries were observed at the time of him coming to the police station and the injured/informant was admitted in hospital on 13.03.2025 and was discharged on 14.03.2025 and immediately he instituted the FIR. 8. Learned A.G.A. has further stated that the post-mortem report indicates that there was lacerated wound 6 cm x 3 cm bone deep present on frontal region of the head and forehead underneath frontal bone and nasal bone fracture, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail as he acted with common intention to commit the said offence. Even the delay stands explained as the injured/informant was admitted in hospital. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the injuries sustained by the deceased person and the fact that the applicant and the co-accused person were named in the FIR, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 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 as early as possible 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 29, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 35643 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad