HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18316 of 2025 Court No. - 66 HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard Sri Raghuvansh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Puneet Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State Respondent and perused the record. The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS at the instance of the applicant, Bijendra son of Dhanpal has been filed seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 79 of 2025, under Section 190, 19192), 19193), 115(2), 103(1), 238 of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Hapur Dehat, District Hapur. The bail application of the applicant before the court below was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Hapur, vide order dated 24.04.2025 and the applicant has ween languishing in jail since 16.02.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number due to ulterior motive. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR in question was initially lodged nominating four persons including the applicant initially under Section 115(2) and 103(1) of BNS, however, during investigation the Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3) and 238 BNS were added. The FIR alleged that Pinki (sister of the informant) was married to one Sonu. She visited her matrimonial home on 13.03.2025 and picked up a fight with brother in law Ankit. On being informed the informant,his friend Ankit son of Ravindra and friend Praveen arrived at the matrimonial home of Pinki where they witnessed a scuffle between Pinki and Ankit (named accused and brother in law). Both Pinki and Ankit were injured. The applicant and his sons Mohit and Vipin also arrived and started fighting with Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Fatma Khatoon, Raghuvansh Misra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Amul Kumar Tyagi, G.A., Santosh Kumar Shukla Bijendra .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) the informant. The informant tried to escape but was informed by his friend Praveen that Vipin, Ankit and Mohit were following him. Before Praveen could sit in the car, he was abducted by the accused and later murdered. The dead body of the deceased Praveen was found lying near Kalkikhera Bhatta and later sent to CHC and thereafter to the District Hospital, Hapur where the inquest is stated to have been conducted. The post mortem examination of the deceased was conducted on 14.03.2025 and as many as eight anti mortem injuries were reported and cause of death shown was due to anti mortem head injury with intra-chronical hemorrhage which is sufficient to cause death in due course of nature. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that Pinki in her statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS has assigned role of causing injury to the deceased to Ankit and Mohit and the applicant has been shown as a bystander. The independent witness Wahid has nominated Ankit with a knife, Mohit and Ujjawal with brick bats while the applicant has not been assigned any weapon. The injuries upon the deceased is not attributed to the applicant. The witness Mahesh in his statement has stated that the deceased was taken away on a motorcycle by Ujjawal and Vipin. It is also argued that the CCTV Footage collected during investigation reveals that three persons were found on a motorcycle. One has been identified as Vipin, the second as Praveen (the deceased) and the third person has been identified as Ujjawal. In the statement of Pinki the applicant has not been assigned any weapon and has been described merely as a bystander. The applicant has not been seen in the CCTV Footage. No incriminating article has been recovered from the pointing out of the applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The false implication of the applicant cannot be be ruled out. The applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial and shall not abuse the liberty of bail if granted. Hence release on bail is prayed for. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail, but could not dispute the above submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant. Considering all those facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima- facie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out. BAIL No. 18316 of 2025 2 Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the accused-applicant, Bijendra, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence. 2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity. 3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial. 4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail. August 19, 2025 pks BAIL No. 18316 of 2025 3 (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- PAWAN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad