HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30075 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Kali Shankar Tiwari, counsel for the informant. Perused the record. 2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 136 of 2024, under Sections 452, 304, 323, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C., Police Station- Rath, District- Hamirpur during pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the first information report, the applicant along with five named accused is alleged to have assaulted the informant (now deceased). As per the statement of the doctor, the injuries received by the deceased were simple in nature. It is contended that vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. Identically placed co- accused Vipin and Rahul have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 2.9.2024 and 9.9.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 27091 of 2024 and 29939 of 2025 respectively. The applicant claims parity. The applicant does not have any criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 1.8.2025. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned A.G.A. and counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashish Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Govind Singh Rajpoot, Kali Shanker Tiwari Amit Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) the record. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that as per the statement of the doctor, the injuries received by the deceased were simple in nature. Vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. Identically placed co-accused Vipin and Rahul have been granted bail by this Court. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for more than two months and 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 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, Amit Kumar involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that: i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness; iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court. 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 8, 2025 S.S. BAIL No. 30075 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad