HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30657 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 applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 611 of 2025, under Sections 109, 351(2), 352 of BNS, Police Station - Majhaula, District - Moradabad, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the co-accused Chand Babu is stated to have caught hold of the informant's son and the applicant is stated to have slit his throat by using razor on 28.06.2025 at about 07:30 PM. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about 18 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that the injury report prepared by the medical officer at District Hospital, Moradabad indicates that nature, duration and object could not be ascertained, as such, it is vague as it cannot be ascertained as to whether the injuries have been inflicted as mentioned in the FIR. 7. Learned counsel has next contended that the criminal history of five cases Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sharif .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) assigned to the applicant stands explained in the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.06.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 8. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. 9. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 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, delay in lodging the FIR and also considering the said injury report, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant- Sharif, 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant 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 applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. September 16, 2025 Siddhant BAIL No. 30657 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad