Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35058 Court No. - 5 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8112 of 2025 Applicant :- Nadeem Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Rana,Rajrshi Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. Matter is taken up in the revised call. This is the second bail application. It has been contended that some critical facts were not referenced to the Court at the time of hearing of the first bail application. The applicant is permitted to raise the aforesaid grounds since the aforesaid facts are relevant or rather decisive to determine the fate of the bail application. By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 192 of 2024 at Police Station Tarkulwa District Deoria under Sections 147, 149, 304, 323, 336, 504 I.P.C. The applicant is in jail since 13.05.2024. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 30.08.2024. The following arguments made by Shri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel and Shri Jitendra Rana, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Chandan Agarwal, learned AGA-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail: 1. A vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant in the FIR. 2. The injuries depicted in the postmortem report contradict the prosecution case. 3. The postmortem report opines that no injury was caused to the ribs and the chest bones. 4. The cause of death as reflected in the postmortem report was right lung ruptured and cervical spinal cord injury. 5. The injury to the spine was in the nature of a whiplash which results from a sudden fall to the grounds. 6. The medical report contradicts the prosecution case set out in the FIR. 7. The applicant claims congruency in role and seeks parity in relief granted to the co-accused person who has been granted bail by this Court on 30.08.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.24261 of 2024. 8. The applicant has explained his criminal history. It is also contended that the applicant is a convenient scapegoat for the police authorities. The applicant has been falsely nominated in a false case only to show the proficiency of the police investigators. The said case does not have any bearing on the instant bail application. 9. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending. In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Nadeem Khan be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial. (ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023). The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties, or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 Dhananjai Digitally signed by :- DHANANJAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad