HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32572 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 126 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 117(2), 333, 115(2), 352, 105 B.N.S., Police Station- Naraini, District- Banda during pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The name of the applicant was disclosed in the statement of the informant under Section 180 B.N.S.S. As per the statement of the doctor, cause of death of Jagdav is attributed to per-existing disease. It is next contended that the injuries sustained by the informant were simple in nature. A vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as a principal offender, who caused injuries to the deceased and the informant. Further, identically placed co-accused Gyana @ Rinki has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 9.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 27021 of 2025. The applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 29.1.2025 having no criminal history. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Love Lesh Kumar Verma, Phool Chandra Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sandeep Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) information report. The name of the applicant was disclosed in the statement of the informant under Section 180 B.N.S.S. As per the statement of the doctor cause of death of Jagdev is attributed to per-existing disease. Further, the injuries received by the informant were simple in nature. A vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as a principal offender, who caused injuries to the deceased and the informant. Identically placed co-accused Gyana @ Rinki has been granted bail by this Court. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has presently remained confined for more than eight months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant, Sandeep Kumar involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that: i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness; iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court. 7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. October 13, 2025 S.S. BAIL No. 32572 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad