HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10204 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Babu Ram Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicants seek bail in Case Crime No. 206 of 2023, under Sections 147, 323, 325, 308, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station Gyanpur, District Bhadohi, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicants and other co-accused persons are stated to have assaulted and caused injuries to two injured persons on 23.10.2023 at about 7 p.m. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the applicants are absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about nine hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has next stated that there is a cross-version to the instant case and FIR No.205 of 2023 was instituted from the side of the applicants and three persons have sustained injuries in the said case and at that stage it cannot be ascertained as to which party is aggressor one, as such the applicants are entitled for bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Babu Ram Yadav, Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashok Kumar Singh, G.A. Ashok Kumar Chauhan And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 7. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicants is bailable as the said case relates to rash and negligent driving and the applicants did not have any knowledge of any challan being issued against them. The applicants are languishing in jail since 03.03.2025 and they are ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the instant case is of extreme gravity which implies that Section 116 (h) of BNS is applicable to the instant case as one of the injured person was admitted in the hospital for more than 15 days. 9. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record and taking into consideration the delay in institution of the FIR, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicants - Ashok Kumar Chauhan and Shrichand @ Pandit, who are involved in aforementioned case crime 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. i) The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicants shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicants shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. BAIL No. 10204 of 2025 2 13. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. September 23, 2025 Sumit S BAIL No. 10204 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad