HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20066 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Prateek Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rakesh Chandra, learned counsel for the informant, Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.254 of 2025, under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 109(1), 61(2)(B) B.N.S., 2023 and 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have assaulted the victim and caused injuries to his pubic area on 12.03.2025 at about 9:00 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. The FIR is delayed by about three hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is cross version to the instant case. The FIR from the side of the applicant i.e. Case Crime No.253 of 2025 was instituted the same day about eight minutes prior to the instant FIR. The applicant himself had sustained nineteen injuries in the incident and there is no explanation of the said injury caused either. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that at this point of time it cannot be ascertained as to which party was the aggressor one. The criminal history of ten cases assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.03.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prateek Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Rakesh Chandra, G.A. Pramod Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 7. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is the main accused person and is the author of the said gunshot injury. 8. 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. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that there is cross version to the instant case, 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. 10. Let the applicant- Pramod Singh, 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. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 12. 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. September 19, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 20066 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad