HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21025 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Sri Yashwant Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sarvesh Kumary Dubey, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 110 of 2025, under Sections 118(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 117(2), 110 B.N.S., Police Station - Thathiya, District - Kannauj, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant and three other co-accused persons are said to have caused grievous injuries to the informant and three other family members on 30.03.2025 between 12 noon to 01:00 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 more than six hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. It is true that four persons have sustained injuries from the side of the informant but the grievous injuries were observed only on one Kamla Devi and one person has sustained injury from the side of applicant also. The FIR No. 115 of 2025 was also instituted from the side of applicant, as such, at this point of time, it cannot be ascertained as to which party was the aggressor one. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 30.04.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Yashwant Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Roshani Dwivedi, Sarvesh Kumar Dubey Surjeet .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) bail. 6. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there are grievous injuries sustained by four persons and the informant's mother Kamla Devi in particular, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record and taking into consideration the fact that the FIR being delay and there being a cross version to the instant case, prima-facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant- Surjeet, 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. 9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 10. 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 25, 2025 sailesh BAIL No. 21025 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAILESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SAILESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad