HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22944 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicants is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicants seek bail in Case Crime No. 0165 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 109, 352, 351(3) of BNS, Police Station - AIIMS, District - Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicants along with co-accused persons is stated to have caused injuries to four persons in all on 19.05.2025 at about 07:00 AM. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that there is a cross-version to the instant case as two persons had sustained injuries from the applicant's side also and an FIR No. 167 of 2025 was instituted against the informant and other co-accused persons. Since there being a cross-version, at this point of time it cannot be ascertained as to which party was the aggressor one. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. Criminal history of four cases assigned to the applicant no. 1 stands explained in the affidavit. 7. Learned counsel has next contended that the applicants are languishing in jail since 20.05.2025 and they are ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants. 9. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjeev Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Deenanath Yadav And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the aforesaid judgement of Supreme Court coupled by the fact that there being a cross-version to the instant FIR, as such, it cannot be ascertained as to which party was the aggressor one, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicants on bail. The bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicants- Deenanath Yadav and Manager, who are involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on their 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 applicants will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicants will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 13. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. September 22, 2025 Siddhant BAIL No. 22944 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad