HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19822 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Mahipal Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Farid Ahmad, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.90 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 352, 3(5) B.N.S. and Section 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station Afzalgarh, District Bijnor with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant and other named accused persons are stated to have assaulted and caused stab wound to the son of the informant on 28.3.2025 at about 09:15 p.m. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by about 02 hours and 35 minutes and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The prosecution story stands falsified from the fact that two of the named accused persons, namely, Rafeeq Ahmad and Shakeel have been exonerated by the police, and subsequently, in the statement of injured person it has come up that accused Nadeem had caught hold and the applicant had stabbed him with knife. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the injuries Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mahipal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Farid Ahmad, G.A. Shadab .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) were not dangerous to life of the injured person as the CT scan and ultrasound report do not indicate any internal damage in the body of the injured person. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 7.4.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the informant was not an eye-witness to the incident. The star witness is the injured person himself who has categorically assigned the role of stabbing to the applicant. 8. Learned counsel for the informant has further stated that the injured person had sustained four incised wounds of which three are on vital parts of the body as they are on neck, chest and abdomen. The fourth injury was on the right palm of the injured person, which was sustained while saving his life. 9. Learned counsel for the informant has placed much reliance on the statement of the injured person and the doctor, who treated the victim. As per statement of the doctor concerned, about 2 to 2.5 liters of blood was found in the abdomen of the injured person. As such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the injuries sustained by the injured person and the fact that FIR is prompt, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 11. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. 12. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts BAIL No. 19822 of 2025 2 brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. September 19, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 19822 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad