HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32750 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Mayank Kumar Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Raj Kamal, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.145 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 118(2) B.N.S., Police Station- Jasrana, District- Firozabad, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith co-accused persons is stated to have assaulted and caused injuries to the informant armed with sharp edged weapon, revolver and CMP on 17.5.2025 at about 08:43 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. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons including the applicant. No particular role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant did not carry any motive to commit the said offence as the motive, if any, was carried by the co-accused person Vikramjeet, who is stated to Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raj Kamal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ramakant .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) have outraged the modesty of two girls in the family of the informant. 7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.5.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 9. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case of bail is made out. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of FIR and there being general and omnibus allegations against all the accused person and also there being no motive for the applicant to commit the said offence, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima facie, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant- Ramakant, 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 pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall 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 applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent BAIL No. 32750 of 2025 2 opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. September 23, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 32750 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad