HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32435 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A. 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. 267 of 2025, under Sections 3(5), 333, 115(2), 352, 125, 105 B.N.S., Police Station- Jiyanpur, District- Azamgarh 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 four accused is alleged to have assaulted the informant Ganpat Rajbhar, wife of the informant Sursati Devi, mother of the informant Kalawati Devi and father of the informant Birju Rajbhar. It is contended that apart from the four inured person a woman named Neha also received injury. The father of the informant Birju Rajbhar succumbed to his injuries. As per the postmortem report, the deceased Birju Rajbhar sustained three injuries. Injury no.1 was on his head and other injuries were on non-vital parts of the body. The injuries sustained by the injured persons were found simple in nature. It is contended that a vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as a principal offender, who caused injury on the head of the deceased. The applicant is in jail since 12.7.2025 having no criminal history. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Antima Rajbhar, Hari Prakash Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Tripurari Rajbhar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that as per the first information report, the applicant along with four accused is alleged to have assaulted the informant Ganpat Rajbhar, wife of the informant Sursati Devi, mother of the informant Kalawati Devi and father of the informant Birju Rajbhar. As per the postmortem report, the deceased Birju Rajbhar sustained three injuries. Injury no.1 was on his head and other injuries were on non-vital parts of the body. The injuries sustained by the injured persons were simple in nature. A vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as a principal offender, who caused injury on the head of the deceased. 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, Tripurari Rajbhar 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. 32435 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad