Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:66908 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10605 of 2025 Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Parvish Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pramod Shukla Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant and perused the material brought on record. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicants are named along with five other accused persons. The allegation made in the F.I.R. is that all the accused persons assaulted three persons from the informant side. Learned counsel further submits that sudden quarrel erupted on account of filthy water of ditch. Three persons from applicants side also sustained injuries. Two accused who were also named in the F.I.R. have already been enlarged on bail. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicants have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicants that they are ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make themselves available before the court whenever required and are also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon them. He next submits that the applicants are in jail since 10.02.2025, with no criminal history. 3. Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by contending that the injured Krishnapal had sustained eleven injuries, his injury No. 1 was caused by sharp edged weapon on his head, which weapon, i.e., Farsa, has been assigned to the applicant Sandeep Kumar by the said injured in his statement and as also in the F.I.R. Thus, specific role of causing fatal injury has been to the applicant Sandeep Kumar, therefore, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. So far as applicant-Sunil is concerned, general allegation has been made against him. 4. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence and considering that specific role of assaulting to the injured by Farsa has been assigned to the applicant-Sandeep Kumar, which corroborates with the injury sustained by the said injured, therefore, the prayer for bail of applicant-Sandeep Kumar is rejected, at this stage. 5. So far as the applicant Sunil is concerned, this Court finds that no specific role has been assigned to him and only general allegation has been made against him. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the applicant-Sunil is accordingly allowed. 6. Let the applicant-Sunil, be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.563 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 427, 504, 307 I.P.C., Police Station- Baghpat, District- Baghpat, on executing a personal bond and furnishing two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court. iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission. v) 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 such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. 7. In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant in accordance with law. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 Mustaqeem. Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad