HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18583 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri R.P. Rajan, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Vikrant Gupta, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.95 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 115(2) B.N.S. and Section 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station-Deoband, District-Saharanpur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have entered into an altercation with the son of the informant and his uncle on 22.02.2025 at about 09:45 PM. The said altercation ensued into an assault on the son of the informant-Tasavvar and his uncle Aslam whereby the son of the informant succumbed to the injuries sustained later on. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by more than seven hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. It is a case of sudden provocation and the sudden quarrel ensued between the parties which culminated into the death of one of the injured person. It is further submitted that the case does not go beyond culpable homicide. The applicant is not a habitual offender. The applicant has no Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pankaj Bharti, R P Rajan, Ramesh Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mohammed Shadan, Prashant Kumar Singh, Vikrant Gupta Shamshad .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) criminal history to his credit. The applicant is in jail since 24.02.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the injured person has categorically assigned the role of inflicting fatal injuries and stabbing the deceased person to the applicant. It is further submitted that the said fact even stands mentioned in the two earlier bail orders granted to the co-accused. It is further submitted that the injuries match with the prosecution story, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that applicant is the main accused person who inflicted the said stab wounds to the deceased person and also the injured person sustained stab wounds, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 8. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 9. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. 10. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. October 9, 2025 Karan BAIL No. 18583 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad