HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12280 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State on this second bail application, the first having been rejected vide order dated 6.8.2025 passed in Bail No.9758 of 2024, and perused the record. 2.The order dated 6.8.2025 (supra) is extracted below : " Heard learned counsel the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant. The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C./483 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant- Anil Yadav @ Guddu Yadav seeking bail in FIR/Case Crime No. 167 of 2024, under Sections 147, 342, 323, 304 IPC, P.S.- Kotwali Nagar, District- Bahraich. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 2.6.2024, the informant and his friend were going to Bahraich and on the way, when they stopped at a Pan shop, a dispute took place regarding the purchase of Pan and the main accused Anil Yadav (applicant) along with his cousin brother along with 3-4 persons have beaten up the informant and his friend, due to which they sustained several injuries. It is further alleged that the main accused Anil Yadav (applicant) has hit the victim on his head. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that specific role of causing injury was on the co-accused Rajendra Yadav @ Raju Yadav who has been granted bail by a coordinate bench of this Court. The bail order is on record as Annexure-14 to the bail application. Hence, the present applicant claims parity. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. Perused the record. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Daya Shankar Yadav, Sanjiv Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Anil Yadav @ Guddu .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) A perusal of the statement of the eye-witness Meraj Khan shows that specific role of causing injury with an iron rod is on the applicant. The coordinate bench of this Court while considering the bail of the co- accused Rajendra Yadav @ Raju Yadav has also observed that it is the present applicant who has caused the injury. Thus, it does not appear to be a case of parity. The role of the present applicant is distinct from that of the said co-accused who is not named in the FIR. The applicant appears to be the main accused in this case. The offence is heinous in nature. In view of the above, no ground for grant of bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected." 3.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedent. The first bail application was rejected by this court on the basis of the statement of eye witness Meraj Khan who has assigned specific role of causing injury with an iron rod to the present applicant. The applicant has no previous criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 9.6.2024. It is submitted that during trial, Meraj Khan has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. The complainant has also been examined. Out of 11 prosecution witnesses, till date, only two prosecution witnesses could be examined. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. 4.Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. 5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, the eye-witness Meraz Khan has been examined and declared hostile, the complainant too has been examined, out of 11, only two prosecution witnesses could be examined so far, judgment in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh versus State of Maharasthra and another 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. BAIL No. 12280 of 2025 2 6.Let the applicant Anil Yadav alias Guddu, involved in Case Crime No.167 of 2024 under sections 147, 323, 342, 304 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, district Bahraich (S.T. No.1170 of 2024) 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court and he shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. Any other condition(s) which the trial court/court concerned may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed. 7.The application is allowed accordingly. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merit of the trial. December 8, 2025 kkb/ BAIL No. 12280 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench