HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11969 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State, Shri Shrikant Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. 2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No. 307 of 2025, under sections 103(1), 109, 351(3), 352 BNS, P.S. Jaisinghpur, District Sultanpur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that in terms of FIR it was alleged that on 1.8.2025 son of the informant was coming home and on the way a truck was stuck and there was huge road block. The co accused Amit Yadav hurled abuses on son of informant and altercation took place in between them in which threats were issued. Subsequently when son of applicant was standing besides the road all three accused came on a four wheeler and hit him which resulted in his death. It was stated that vehicle was taken over body of the deceased. In the light of the said allegations learned counsel for the applicant draws my attention to post mortem report which indicates presence of two injuries one being abrasion on his forehand and the second being contusion on the right eyebrow. In the light of the said allegations it is argued that the allegations that the vehicle was taken over the deceased is not corroborated by post mortem report. My attention was also drawn to statement of one witness Balmuknd wherein he stated a car was being driven by unknown persons came and hit the deceased which resulted in substantial injuries and subsequent Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Brijesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pintu @ Pramod Yadav .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) death. Subsequently he alleged that the car being driven by 3 accused hit the applicant with an intent to commit his murder. The statement of other witness are on record which stated that on account of commotion the said witness were informed that prior to the incident altercation took place in between the accused and the victim and the offence in question was committed. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant also draws my attention to vehicle inspection report of the vehicle which does not disclose any injury or harm to the vehicle. It is thus argued that it is a case of accident being converted to offence under Section 103 BNS. 5. Learned counsel for the informant on the other hand opposes the bail application by arguing that with similar allegations threats were issued and the injuries were caused deliberately. 6. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application. 7. Considering the submission made at the bar prima facie from the post mortem report the allegations of running over the vehicle on the deceased are not corroborated. In view thereto the material to implicate the applicant under Section 103 BNS is apparently missing. The criminal history of seven case which are minor in nature, however, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the applicant who is in jail since 9.8.2025 is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant Pintu @ Pramod Yadav be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions: (a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings; (b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and (c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as BAIL No. 11969 of 2025 2 to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. December 2, 2025 J. K. Dinkar BAIL No. 11969 of 2025 3 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench