HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10764 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.Case Crime/FIR No. 0222 of 2025, Under Sections- 3(5), 352, 351(3), 308(5) B.N.S., Police Station- Patti, District- Pratapgarh In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the complainant had agreed to sell his immovable property in favour of one Brijesh Tiwari, but the accused Sushil Singh, who was the Block Pramukh, intervened in the said deal by extending threats to the complainant to dispose of the property at a lesser price, because he wanted that property to be sold to one of his men, which was refused by the complainant and his father. On 18.07.2025, in the noon, at around 1 O'Clock, the named accused persons went to the house of the informant/complainant and started hurling abuses, and pressurized them to sell that property to his men and threatened the complainant that if he sells the property to Brijesh Tiwari, he will have to pay Rs. 10 lakhs as Gunda Tax, and if he does not pay the same, his entire family will be killed. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has explained the criminal history of eight cases in paragraph 5 of the supplementary affidavit. He further submits that co-accused Sushil Singh has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 14.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9354 of 2025, and the applicant seeks parity with the said co-accused. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sumit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Santosh Singh .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) It is further submitted that no role of causing injury has been assigned to the applicant by the alleged injured. No medico-legal examination of the injured has been conducted. There are improvements in the prosecution case made by the complainant and his father while recording their statements. It is further submitted that no offence under Section 308(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) is made out, as there has been no delivery of property or money, and the essential ingredients to attract the offence under the said provision are also missing. 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. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the facts mentioned above. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record. On due consideration to the facts of the case and the ingredients of Section 308(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), the role assigned to the present applicant appears to be similar to that of co- accused Sushil Singh, who has already been granted bail by this Court; coupled with the fact that the applicant is in jail since 07.08.2025, 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 Santosh Singh be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions: (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 BAIL No. 10764 of 2025 2 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 under Section 229-A of the IPC (now Section 269 BNS). (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 of the IPC (now Section 209 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 11, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S BAIL No. 10764 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench