HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10304 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant , learned A.G.A for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record. The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.0223 of 2025 under Sections 109, 351(3), 115(2), 352, 324(2) of BNS (old sections 307, 506, 323, 504, 426 IPC, P.S. Motigarpur, district Sultanpur. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that father of the complainant was returning to his home at 5.00 a.m. after attending call of nature. As soon as he reached in front of the house of Babu Ram Yadav, due to old enmity, named accused persons with common intention attacked on the father of complainant with iron road, lathi and danda and to save his life injured tried to go inside the house of Babu Ram, who closed the door of his house. Sunil Yadav exhorted accused persons to kill the deceased. In the meantime, with the intent to kill, Shani with iron rod has assaulted father of the complainant on his head, due to which he fell down. Vivek and Arvind Yadav are alleged to have badly beaten the injured. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant is innocent and even if the prosecution case is taken as it is, the role of causing head injury is on Shani, co-accused. The applicant has been assigned the role of causing injury which will not attract the provisions of Section 109 BNS. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for complainant have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there are two injured in this case. Injured Mahendra Kumar has sustained nine injuries and total three fractures have been sustained by him. Injury no.1 has been sustained over left of head and in the CT scan, liner fracture has been found. Apart from this, there is fracture in the leg as well as there are other injuries. Co- accused Gaurav Chubey has also received two simple injuries. It is submitted that applicant and co-accused have caused eight injuries to injured Mahendra Kumar and Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shiv Prakash Dwivedi, Dinesh Chandra Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Avinash Pandey, Bhavya Prakash Shukla, Prashant Kumar Arvind Yadav .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) two, to another injured. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, statement of the complainant as well as the injured, applicant has no criminal history, role of causing head injury to co-accused Shani, applicant has been attributed the general role of causing injury, which prima facie will not attract the provision of Section 109 of BNS and also the fact that the applicant is in jail since 15.09.2025 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Arvind Yadav involved in aforesaid case crime number 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 evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) 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. (iv) 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. 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. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with law. (vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC (now Section 209 of BNS). It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. November 12, 2025 Renu/- BAIL No. 10304 of 2025 2 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench