HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18602 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Pushpendra Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Mohd. Shahibe Alam, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.128 of 2025, under Sections 109, 115(2), 352 B.N.S., Police Station- Mansurpur, District- Muzaffarnagar, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have assaulted and caused injury to the informant on his shoulder on 24.4.2025 at about 04:00 p.m. 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 nineteen hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the allegations have been deliberately inflated by the informant after legal consultation. The injuries are not on the vital parts of the body of the injured person. Although, there is an incised wound sustained by the injured person and there is recovery of Balkati from the applicant, but it is a clear cut case of false Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd. Shahibe Alam Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Shaukeen .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) implication. 7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the real brother of the injured person. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.4.2025 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 A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 9. 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 of bail is made out. 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 delay in institution of FIR, 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. 11. Let the applicant- Shaukeen, 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. BAIL No. 18602 of 2025 2 September 19, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 18602 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad