HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19360 of 2025 Court No. - 66 HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard Sri Shashank Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Puneet Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State Respondent, Sri Krishna Mani, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. The instant bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 at the instance of the applicant, Jitendra Kumar Yadav has been filed seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 61 of 2025, under Section 115(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5), 109(1) and 103(1) of B.N.S., Police Station Koraon, District Prayagraj during the pendency of the trial in the court below. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Prayagraj, vide order dated 05.05.2025 and the applicant is languishing in jail since 17.03.2025. learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number for ulterior motives. The FIR giving rise to the case crime number was lodged nominating the applicant and two other co-accused persons with the allegation that the first informant was celebrating Holi along with his friends, when the applicant along with the co-accused and two other persons started beating the applicant and others with Lathi and Danda after abusing them. The scuffle resulted in the death of one Ajai Shah and injuries to Suraj Kumar and Rohit Kumar. The post-mortem of the deceased revealed as many as six ante-mortem injuries and the cause of death reported was due to ante-mortem chronic cerebral damage as a result of head injury consequent to blunt force trauma/surface impact and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary cause of nature. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the FIR mentions a Petrol Pump where the scuffle is said to have taken place but in the site plan prepared by the Investigation Officer the is no mention of the Petrol Pump. The injured persons Rohit Kumar and Suraj Kumar have both suffered simple injuries. The recovery of Danda and Iron Rod has been made from Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mahendra Bahadur Singh, Rishabh Singh, Shashank Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Krishna Mani Jitendra Kumar Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) the house of co-accused Rahul Verma and the applicant has been roped in merely on the ground that the applicant is a friend of Rahul Verma. The charge-sheet against the applicant has already been submitted on 14.04.2025 and the custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required. The applicant has a criminal antecedent of one case which has been duly explained in Para 24 of the bail application. The applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial and shall not misuse the liberty of bail. hence bail has been prayed for. Per contra, learned AGA as also learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail plea by submitting that the complicity of the applicant in the commission of the crime stands established from the statements of the injured witnesses, Suraj Kumar, Rohit Kumar and Ajay Kesari. The applicant along with the co-accused persons with a common intent committed the alleged crime which resulted in the death of one person and bodily injures to others. It is thus prayed that the bail application warrants outright rejection. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be inappropriate to discuss the evidence in depth at this stage because it is likely to influence the trial of the accused. But, from the perusal of the evidences, collected during investigation so far, prima-facie, the involvement of the accused in the present case cannot be ruled out. No reason is found to falsely implicate the applicant/accused. Therefore, there is no good ground to release the applicant-accused on bail at this stage. All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant pertain to the merits of the case and the same cannot be considered while considering application for grant of bail. This court is unable to form an opinion at this stage that the accused has not committed an offence. In the ultimate conclusion, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of the offence, severity of punishment, in my opinion, no case for bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected. It is clarified that the observations made regarding the bail application is limited to the decision of the bail application and any observations made herein shall not effect the trial of the case. August 19, 2025 pks BAIL No. 19360 of 2025 2 (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- PAWAN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad