HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32436 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anupam Anand, learned Brief Holder 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. 113 of 2025, under Sections 105, 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 118(1) B.N.S., Police Station- Matsaina, District- Firozabad during pendency of the 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 applicant along with ten named accused is alleged to have assaulted Pappu, Mulayam and Bhagwan Singh. Bhagwan Singh succumbed to his injuries on his way to the hospital. According to the postmortem report, the deceased received three injuries. In the opinion of the doctor cause of death could not be ascertained. Viscera was preserved. It is contended that the F.S.L. report is still awaited. The other injured namely, Pappu and Mulayam received injuries, which were simple in nature. A vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. Investigation has been completed and chargesheet has been filed. The applicant is in jail since 27.6.2025 having no criminal history. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned Brief Holder for the State 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Raju .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Court prima facie finds that as per the first information report, the applicant along with ten named accused is alleged to have assaulted Pappu, Mulayam and Bhagwan Singh. According to the postmortem report, the deceased received three injuries. In the opinion of the doctor cause of death could not be ascertained. Viscera was preserved. F.S.L. report is still awaited. The other injured namely, Pappu and Mulayam received injuries, which were simple in nature. A vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for more than three 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, Raju 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. 32436 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad