HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3480 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record. 2.It is alleged in the prosecution case that on 3.1.2025 at about 10 O'Clock in night, altercation took place between the informant with Chandrashekhar and Anmol Sharma in their shop at Naubasta Puliya. It is alleged that Chandrashekhar, the accused applicant hit on informant's abdomen with scissors and the informant sustained injury. 3.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that first of all, in the tehrir, name of the informant is shown as Sonu whereas in the first information report it is Shivam Soni. There is no independent witness of the incident. As per statement of the injured Sonu Soni, both, the applicant and Ram Niwas alias Anmol have been assigned the role of causing injury with scissor in the abdomen of the injured. The co-accused Ramnivas alias Anmol has been granted bail vide order dated 6.2.2025 passed by Sessions Judge, Lucknow (Annexure-10). The applicant claims parity. The applicant has no previous criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 7.1.2025. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rampyare Singh, Kaushal Kishore Tewari, Shiv Shankar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Chandshekhar .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. 4.Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. 5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, bail order of Ramnivas, the applicant has no criminal history, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. 6.Let the applicant Chandrashekhar involved in Case Crime No.7 of 2025 under sections 109(1), 3(5) BNS, P.S. Madiyaon, district Lucknow be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court and he shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial 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. Any other condition(s) which the trial court/court concerned may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed. 7.The application is allowed accordingly. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merit of the BAIL No. 3480 of 2025 2 trial. November 20, 2025 kkb/ BAIL No. 3480 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench