HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32191 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Bharti, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.63 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 61(2) B.N.S., Police Station- Kotwali Shamli, District- Shamli, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the FIR was instituted against unknown person by the informant stating that his brother had gone for racing at Udham Singh Stadium on 5.2.2025 at about 06:00 p.m. and he was assaulted by some unknown person by sharp edged weapon leaving him almost dead, as such, he was rushed to District Hospital, Shamli from where he was referred to Meerut. The FIR was instituted on 6.2.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about sixteen hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The applicant is not named in the FIR, but subsequently on the basis of suspicion the father of the injured person Karampal has stated that over the breaking of promise to marry his son with one Nikki, the said lady had hatched conspiracy Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Pankaj Bharti Monu @ Abhishek .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) alongwith other co-accused persons and caused said injury to the injured person. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that in addition to the delayed FIR, the statement of victim has been recorded after a delay of more than one and a half month as it was recorded on 24.3.2025 and he has nominated the applicant to be one of the persons causing injuries to him with sharp edged weapon, but the said statement cannot be taken into consideration as it has been recorded after much delay. 7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.2.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that injured person has sustained fracture on his temporal bone and the pieces of bone were retrieved from the cranium of the victim which was found deeply embedded by the concerned doctor, which speaks volume of gravity of the injuries sustained by the injured person, as such, the delay in institution of FIR also stand explained as it was the utmost duty of the informant to first rush the injured person to the hospital who was taken to Meerut, which itself is far away from the place of occurrence. 9. Learned counsel for the informant has further argued that the injured person was hospitalized from 5.2.2025 to 11.3.2025, as such, he went under treatment for more than one month, as such, provision under Section 116(h) BNS also indicates that injuries were grievous in nature. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that injured person was released from hospital on 11.3.2025 and his statement was recorded on 24.3.2025 i.e. after a delay of 13 days and the FIR itself is delayed, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima facie, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. BAIL No. 32191 of 2025 2 11. Let the applicant- Monu @ Abhishek, who is 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 applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant 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. 13. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. September 19, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 32191 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad