HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27546 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.S.Pandey, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 72 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 105 BNS, Police Station Saraimamrej, District Prayagraj during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 21.04.2025. The first information report was lodged on 24.04.2025. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. As per the first information report, the applicant along with co-accused Anand is alleged to have assaulted the son of the informant. According to the medical report, the injured received two injuries. The injury no.2 was found simple in nature, whereas the injury no.1 was referred for x-ray examination. No x-ray report is available in the case diary. As per the statement of the eye witnesses namely Bhola Nath Gautam, Satish and Smt. Saroja Devi, the co-accused Anand is alleged to have caused injury to the deceased and the role of instigation has been assigned to the applicant. The case of the applicant is clearly distinguishable from that of co-accused Anand. The applicant is in jail since 05.05.2025 having no criminal antecedents and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Suneel Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Santlal Gautam .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the first information report was lodged belatedly. As per the first information report, the applicant along with co- accused Anand is alleged to have assaulted the son of the informant. According to the medical report, the injured received two injuries. The injury no.2 was found simple in nature, whereas the injury no.1 was referred for x-ray examination. No x-ray report is available in the case diary. As per the statement of the eye witnesses namely Bhola Nath Gautam, Satish and Smt. Saroja Devi, the co-accused Anand is alleged to have caused injury to the deceased and the role of instigation has been assigned to the applicant. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than five months and after submission of charge sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant Santlal Gautam, involved in the aforesaid case 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 the conditions that he: (i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; (ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and, (iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses. 7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. October 7, 2025 Lbm/- BAIL No. 27546 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad