HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10246 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. The applicant is involved in Case Crime No. 0213 of 2018, under Section 307, 504 IPC, Police Station Bhadokhar, District Raebareli. In the FIR, it is alleged that on 03.07.2018 at about 12:30 p.m., while the complainant had gone to Shankerganj market along with his father, the two named accused persons assaulted his father with an iron rod, due to which he fell down. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not named in the FIR. It is further submitted that although during investigation the name of co-accused Pushpendra, who was originally named in the FIR with a similar role, has been found to be falsely implicated, the applicant has nevertheless been falsely roped in during the course of investigation. It is also contended that the injured, while giving his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., has made material improvements and introduced the name of the applicant at a later stage in the prosecution case. It is next submitted that the named co-accused Puttilal has already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.11.2018 passed in Bail No. 9622 of 2018, and the applicant claims parity with the said co-accused. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. Perused the record so also the statement of the injured as well as injury Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Chandra Kishore, Manoj Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Deepu @ Pradip @ Pradip Kumar .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko .....Opposite Party(s) report. On due consideration to the role assigned to the applicant, which appears to be identical to that of co-accused Puttilal against whom general allegations have been levelled in the prosecution case, and further taking into account that during investigation the name of co-accused Pushpendra, who was originally named in the FIR with a similar role, has been found to be falsely implicated, as well as the fact that the applicant has duly explained his criminal history of two cases in paragraphs 28 and 29 of the bail application, he has been languishing in jail since 29.09.2025, I find this to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the ground of parity. Let the applicant Deepu alias Pradip alias Pradip Kumar involved in the aforesaid case crime number 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 shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize or intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) 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. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of the liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (vi) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial, and to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such BAIL No. 10246 of 2025 2 proclamation, then the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. November 10, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S BAIL No. 10246 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench