HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31187 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Dr. Kamlesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rizwan Ahmad, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Amit Kumar, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.288 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 352, 351(2), 115(2) B.N.S., Police Station- Mandi Dhanora, District- Amroha, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith his son Saurabh had gone to the house of the informant and had caused injuries to the brother of the informant on 28.6.2025 at about 02:00 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 nine hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the son of the applicant has been assigned the role of having caused the injuries to the injured person by hitting him with Fawda. The applicant has not been assigned any role of assault in the FIR, but subsequently general role has been assigned to the applicant and his son both by the injured person in his Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rizwan Ahmad Naresh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) statement recorded U/s 180 B.N.S.S. The said role also indicates that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. 7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the case of applicant is at different footing to co-accused person Saurabh. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.7.2025 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 counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application. 9. 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 the fact that applicant has not been assigned any role in the FIR, 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. 10. Let the applicant- Naresh, 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. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 12. 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 18, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 31187 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad