HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6306 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State, Shri Rajesh Kumar Agnihotri, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. 2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.155 of 2025, under Sections 3(5), 115(2), 109, 103(1) BNS, P.S. Ghunghter, District Barabanki. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that in terms of FIR it was alleged that on 28.4.2025 at about 10 the informant, his wife and elder brother were working on agricultural fields when the accused including the applicant who was owner of adjoining agricultural fields started a fight which resulted in injuries to the informant and his wife. Subsequently it was stated that the applicant was carrying fawda and the co acused Rakesh was also carrying an instrument attacked the elder brother of the informant which resulted in substantial injuries and death. In the light of the said, the submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that as per the FIR version also the dispute occurred on account of agricultural fields being adjacent which resulted in a fight and subsequent alleged attack and death. He argues that mens rea has neither been alleged nor exists against the applicant. It is further argued that co accused Ram Asrey, Ram Vilas, Sachin and Rakesh have been enlarged on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the informant on the other hand opposes the bail Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kaustubh Singh, Dinesh Chandra Yadav, Suresh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rajesh Kumar Agnihotri Ankit .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) application by arguing that the specific role of attack by fawda was assigned to the applicant which is also the cause of death and no case for parity is made out and thus the application deserves to be rejected. 5. Considering the submission made at bar prima facie in terms of the FIR the dispute occurred on account of parties having adjacent agricultural properties and the incident occurred in pursuance to the said dispute, prima facie the intent and mens rea to cause the offence appears to be missing. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, can adversely affect the trial. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances, however, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the applicant who is in jail since 29.4.2025 and has no criminal history is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed. 7. Let the applicant Ankit be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions: (a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings; (b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and (c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. October 27, 2025 J. K. Dinkar BAIL No. 6306 of 2025 2 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench