HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9568 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Himanshu Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. 3. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 28.05.2025 at about 7:00 P.M, an altercation took place between Poonam Saroj and Santosh Saroj, who are sister and brother, due to their children. Upon the said altercation, the applicant hit Poonam with iron rod due to which she was badly injured. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The injury received by both Poonam and Santosh are simple in nature, which is evident from the statement of the doctor, who conducted the medical examination. Both the injured have not sustained any grievous injuries or fractures. The injured and the informant, both have not supported the prosecution case before the trial court. 5. He further submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 30.05.2025. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 7. On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record, the fact that P.W-1 and P.W-2 have not supported the prosecution case; the nature of injury sustained by the injured; the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 30.05.2025 and without Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Himanshu Tiwari, Vedika Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Santosh Saroj .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant- Santosh Saroj involved in Case Crime No. 199 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S, Police Station- Lalganj, District- Pratapgarh, 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 evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (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 to 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 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 in accordance with law. (vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of B.N.S. October 13, 2025 DiVYa BAIL No. 9568 of 2025 2 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench