HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31390 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party, and Sri Shiv Kumar, learned counsel for the informant. 2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 2 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 105 B.N.S., Police Station Basrehar, District Etawah during the pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the first information report, the applicant along with six other accused is alleged to have assaulted the father of the informant and other family members. The father of the informant succumbed to his injuries. According to the postmortem report, two injuries were found on the head region. The cause of death is neurogenic shock due to ante mortem head injury. It is contended that a vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender who caused injury to the deceased. It is next contended that co-accused Nandram and Udayveer have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 29.05.2025 and 07.05.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 18698 of 2025, Nandram v. State of U.P., and 15470 of 2025, Udayveer Singh v. State of U.P. respectively. The applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 11.01.2025 having no criminal history and if he is released on Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anand Gangwar, Km Astha Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Akash Agrahari, G.A., Shiv Kumar, Shiv Poojan Yadav Gulshan .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that a vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender who caused injury to the deceased. Co-accused Nandram and Udayveer have been granted bail by this Court. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for almost nine months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and 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, therefore, 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- Gulshan, 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 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 13, 2025 SKT/- BAIL No. 31390 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad