HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31841 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.S.Pandey, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 738 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 110, 115(2), 352, 126(2), 105, 140(1) BNS, Police Station Bhojipura, District Bareilly during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the first information report, the informant stated that he had received information from one Mukesh that four persons including the applicant, were assaulting an unknown person. However, in his statement under Section 180 BNSS, Mukesh stated that he was not an eye witness to the incident. It is contended that there is no independent witness to support the alleged incident. The first information report is based on unreliable information. The applicant has no role in the alleged incident. The applicant is in jail since 01.08.2025 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned AGA 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 as per the first information report, the informant stated that he had received information from one Mukesh that four persons Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Nirdosh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) including the applicant, were assaulting an unknown person. However, in his statement under Section 180 BNSS, Mukesh stated that he was not an eye witness to the incident. A vague role has been assigned to the applicant. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than two months and after submission of charge sheet 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 delay the trial 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 Nirdosh, involved in the aforesaid case 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 subject to the conditions that he: (i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; (ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and, (iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses. 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 15, 2025 Lbm/- BAIL No. 31841 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad