HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17191 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Kapil Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Avadh Pratap Singh Shishodia, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.622 of 2024, under Section 109 B.N.S., 2023 and 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station Pilkhuwa, District Hapur, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have assaulted the brother of the informant Rahul by knife causing stab wound to him on 23.11.2024 at about 11:30 p.m. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the FIR is delayed by about four days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The incident is of about mid night but the applicant has been subsequently implicated in the case. Had the applicant committed the said offence, the FIR would have been instituted by the morning of 24.11.2024, but the said inordinate delay speaks volume of false implication. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the injury also does not indicate it to be grievous in nature as to date, there is no document of treatment of the victim at G.T.B. Hospital, Sahadara (Delhi). The criminal history of six cases assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashish Tyagi, Kapil Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Avadh Pratap Singh Shishodia, G.A. Sandeep Mahiya .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) is languishing in jail since 05.12.2024 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. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the injury sustained by the injured person was grievous in nature and he has just fetched the documents regarding treatment at G.T.B. Hospital. 9. Learned counsel for the informant has further stated that there is recovery of a knife at the pointing out of the applicant, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 10. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of FIR, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant- Sandeep Mahiya, 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 pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 14. 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 BAIL No. 17191 of 2025 2 opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. September 10, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 17191 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad