HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39377 of 2025 Court No. - 66 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Heard Sri V.P.Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri V.V.Upadhayay, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajiv Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Roopak Chauvey, learned AGA, for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.155 of 2025, under Sections 191(2),191(3), 190, 109(1), 352, 351(3), 329(3) and 324(4) BNS, Police Station Airport, District Prayagraj during pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however, as per allegation due to assault made by applicant and others, one person sustained injury but entire allegations levelled against them are totally false. 4. He further argued that even from the FIR and the statement of the injured/informant recorded during investigation, which has been annexed at page 43 of the paper book, it reflects that though applicant intended to cause injury only on his hand through rod but he sustained injury on his head and, therefore, as far as specific allegation made against the applicant, he caused injury to the injured on his hande, which is non vital part. 5. He further argued that apart from above allegation of assault there is also omnibus allegation of bald nature against the applicant and others but enmity between both the sides appears to be admitted and it appears, due to previous enmity such exaggerated facts have been narrated by the informant in the FIR and in the statement. 6. He further argued that along with the applicant co-accused Jai Prakash Dubey, who was hardened criminal, has also been made accused and against Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Brij Bhushan Upadhyay, Neeja Srivastava, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rajiv Kumar Mishra, Sandeep Singh Vikas Pasi .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) him there was also allegation with regard to provisions of SC/ST Act but his appeal has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 16.3.2026 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 11376 of 2025, which was filed by co-accused Jai Prakash Dubey against the bail rejection order by the court concerned. 7. He further submits that however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of three other cases but all the cases relate to Urban Development Act and in these cases even applicant was not named in the FIR. 8. He further submits that in the present matter applicant is in jail since 15.9.2025, i.e., for the last more than six months. 9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant, however, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. However, as per allegation applicant and several others made assault in which informant sustained injuries but it appears, due to assault made by applicant, injured, i.e.,informant sustained injury on his hand, i.e., non vital part. 12. Further, even there is allegation against co-accused Jai Prakash Dubey, who was also hardened criminal with regard to the provisions of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act but when his bail application was dismissed by the court concerned and he approached this Court in criminal appeal then his appeal was allowed by this Court and he was released him on bail. 13. Further, however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of three other cases and these cases appear to be minor in nature but even in these cases applicant was not named in the FIR. 14. Further, applicant is in jail in the present matter since September, 2025, ,i.e., for the last more than six months. 15. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty, an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed either for punitive or preventive purpose. 16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. BAIL No. 39377 of 2025 2 17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 18. Let the applicant-Vikas Pasi be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 19. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant. 20. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. April 23, 2026 SKM BAIL No. 39377 of 2025 3 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad