HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25200 of 2025 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. 2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Vinay Pratap with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.67 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 352, 351(2), 109 B.N.S., Police Station Auraiya, District- Auraiya, during pendency of trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case due to family dispute. Accused applicant is languishing in jail since 10.2.2025. It is submitted that the informant is the father of the accused applicant and co-accused Krishna Mohini is the wife of the accused applicant. It is further submitted that the incident occurred due to verbal transaction related to family dispute and only one injury is said to have been caused on the head of the injured but the doctor has stated in his statement under Section 180 B.N.S.S. before the I.O. that the injured Ved Prakash has sustained fracture in the finger of his hand and the doctor further stated that no grievous injury or fracture etc. has been found on the vital part of the injured. It is argued that charge-sheet has already been submitted, therefore, there is no reasonable possibility of intimidating or pressurizing the prosecution witnesses. Submission is that there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the matter is related Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajeev Kumar Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mukesh Kumar Pandey Vinay Pratap .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) to family dispute and the parties have entered into a compromise. 5. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 677, considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid 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 with the following conditions that:- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. (ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC/269 of BNS. (iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of BNSS is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC/209 of BNS. (v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 of BNSS If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default BAIL No. 25200 of 2025 2 as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 6. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 7. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. September 22, 2025 RA BAIL No. 25200 of 2025 3 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad