HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36952 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party. 2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 108 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 105 B.N.S., Police Station Haliya, District Mirzapur during the pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 17.06.2025. As per the first information report, the applicant along with another named accused abused the uncle of the informant, beaten him with fists and hands and pushed him, causing him to fall on the ground. The uncle of the informant succumbed to the injuries on 24.06.2025. According to the postmortem report, the deceased had no head injury. Two ante mortem injuries were found on the right and left scapula. It is contended that the said injuries cannot be attributed to the alleged incident dated 17.06.2025. Further, investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed. The applicant is in jail since 25.06.2025 having no criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Suneel Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Lalchand .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that according to the postmortem report, the deceased had no head injury and two ante mortem injuries were found on the right and left scapula. The medical version does not support the prosecution case. Further, the applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for almost four months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and 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, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant- Lalchand, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of 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; and, (iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses. 7. 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 28, 2025 SKT/- BAIL No. 36952 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad