HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12035 of 2024 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State; Shri Sanjeev Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. 2. This is the third bail application on behalf of the applicant who seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.30 of 2023, under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 34, 120B, 201, 427 IPC read with section 3/25 & 5/27 of Arms Act, P.S. Musafirkhana, District Amethi. First bail application of the applicant was rejected on 22.02.2024 in which this Court had considered the fact that the co-accused with similar allegation was denied the bail vide order dated 09.01.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14587 of 2023. Second bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 29.07.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that in terms of the FIR and statements, the alleged role of firing was assigned to the applicant and Muinuddin whose bail application was earlier rejected by this Court on 09.01.2024, however, he has been subsequently granted bail vide order dated 13.09.2024. It is further argued that the applicant was not named in the FIR and was not even named by the informant in his statement. Subsequently, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sukh Deo Singh, Paritosh Shukla, Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mahesh Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar Dwivedi Mukesh Yadav .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) however, in the statement of the co-accused, name of the applicant has surfaced. It is further argued that all the co-accused have been enlarged on bail and all the witnesses have already been examined. The applicant has explained his criminal antecedents in Para 27 of the bail application and in all the said cases, the applicant is on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the informant strongly opposes the bail application by arguing that specific role of firing was assigned to the applicant and not to Muinuddin who was assigned the role of conspiring and considering the difference of allegations, the bail application of the applicant should be rejected. 5. Learned AGA also opposed the bail application. 6. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, what transpires is that all the witnesses have already been examined, all the accused have been enlarged on bail, as such, there is no material to suggest that at this stage the applicant, if enlarged on bail, can adversely affect the trial. In view thereof, the applicant who is in custody since 28.04.2023, is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed. 7. Let the applicant Mukesh Yadav be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of the like amount 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 to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. November 26, 2025 nishant BAIL No. 12035 of 2024 2 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench