HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32488 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anupam Anand, learned Brief Holder for the State-opposite party. 2. The instant bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.237 of 2021 under Sections 147, 323 & 304 IPC, Police Station- Jhunsi, District- Prayagraj during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the first information report, the applicant along with twelve named accused persons is alleged to have caused injuries to the son of the informant, who subsequently died. According to the postmortem report, six injuries were shown on the body of the deceased. A vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as principal offender who caused injuries to the deceased. It is next contended that identically placed co- accused, Smt. Prabhavati has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 7.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.32627 of 2025. The applicant claims parity. The applicant is a lady who is in jail since 05.08.2025 having no criminal history and in case she is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned Brief Holder 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 as per the first information report, the applicant Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Narendra Kumar Shukla, Tarun Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Smt. Savita .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) along with twelve named accused persons is alleged to have caused injuries to the son of the informant, who subsequently died. According to the postmortem report, six injuries were shown on the body of the deceased. A vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. Identically placed co-accused, Smt. Prabhawati has been granted bail by this Court. Further, the applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant has remained confined for more than two months and after submission of the 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 Smt. Savita, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions that she: (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 13, 2025 S.S. BAIL No. 32488 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad