HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27230 of 2025 Court No. - 66 HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Yagyavalk Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State as also Sri Himanshu Mishra, learned counsel for first informant, and perused the records. 2. The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS at the instance of the applicant, Vimal Thakur, has been filed seeking the enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 1052 of 2024, under Sections 103 (1), 352, 3(5) BNS, Police Station- Highway, District- Mathura, during the pendency of the trial before the court concerned. The bail application of the applicant before the court below was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Mathura, vide order dated 22.07.2025 and the applicant has been languishing in jail since 04.11.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number for ulterior motives. The FIR in question was lodged nominating the applicant and two other persons with the allegation that on 03.11.2024 the son of the informant namely Vikram had gone to the house of his brother Bhagwan Singh. A quarrel is stated to have erupted between Bhagwan Singh, Sanjay Arora, applicant and Sahil Arora. When the informant objected the applicant and two other persons started to beating the son of the informant and the applicant is alleged to have struck the son of the informant on his head with an iron rod resulting into the son of the informant sustaining grievous injuries and he fell down unconscious. The injured was taken to the New City Hospital where the Doctor referred the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rahul Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Himanshu Mishra Vimal Thakur .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) injured to the District Hospital. The Doctors at the District Hospital examined the injured but the injured later succumbed to the injuries sustained. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that regarding the same incident an FIR giving rise to Case Crime No. 133 of 2025, under Sections 109, 351 (2), 352, 333, 117 (3), 117 (2) BNS, P.S. Highway, District Mathura was got registered through Section 173 (4) of BNSS by the wife of the applicant namely Smt. Mohini nominating 4 persons i.e. Ajay S/o Bhagwan Singh, Hariom S/o Om Prakash, Dharmendra S/o Rupi and Samrat S/o Mahavir Singh. In the said incident the applicant Vimal Thakur sustained a fracture in his hands and legs and grievous injury to his head and was admitted in District Hospital. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the informant or the prosecution witnesses neither in the FIR or in the statements recorded under Section 180 BNSS during the investigation have explained the injuries sustained by the applicant side. It is also argued that in fact the injuries sustained by the son of the informant Vikram resulting in his death subsequently were sustained in exercise of right of private defence. There is no motive to cause the death of the deceased and the same cannot be said to be intentional killing. It is argued that even if it is assumed that the applicant exceeded his right of private defence the offence at least would be under Section 105 BNS. It is argued that the inquest report dated 04.11.2024 reflects that the injuries were sustained by the deceased in the free fight inter-se parties. The CCTV footage collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation is also reflective of the fact that a free fight occurred inter-se parties and both sides received injuries. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Lakshmi Singh & others vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1976 (4) SCC 394. Hence, bail has been prayed for. 5. Per contra learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the first informant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact. 6. Considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of BAIL No. 27230 of 2025 2 accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let the accused-applicant, Vimal Thakur involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions: i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence. ii. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity. iii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial. iv. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned. 9. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail. September 4, 2025 v.k.updh. BAIL No. 27230 of 2025 3 (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad