HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33999 of 2025 Court No. - 70 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State- respondents and perused the record. 2. This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Ravendra @ Kuldeep seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.289 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 333, 352 B.N.S., Police Station- Gunnor, District- Sambhal. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. Applicant is languishing in jail since 30.8.2025. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. It is submitted that there are contradictions in the version of FIR and the statement of the injured. It is further submitted that the accused applicant has no criminal antecedents. Submission is that conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of accused applicant fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for. 4. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the applicant has committed a very heinous offence of causing injury on the neck of the injured by knife and as per the medical report the injured has sustained one injury of incised wound and other two injuries of abrasion and traumatic swelling. He further submits that the injured has stated in his statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. before the I.O. that the applicant has caused sharp injury on his neck but as per the medical report only injury no.1 is incised wound measuring 2.5cmx0.3cmxfacial Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shahnawaz Akhtar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ravendra Alias Kuldeep .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) deep. The doctor in his statement recorded before the I.O. has stated that if the depth of the injury would be deeper, it would have been dangerous to life. 5. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024, (SC) LawSuit 677 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. (ii) 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. (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC/269 BNS. (iv) 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./84 of 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/209 of BNS. (v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 of B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without BAIL No. 33999 of 2025 2 sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 6. 6. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 7. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. October 7, 2025 RA BAIL No. 33999 of 2025 3 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad