HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32084 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Hemant Kumar Singh, counsel for the informant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The instant bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.212 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 191(2), 191(3), 131, 352, 351(3), 105 B.N.S., Police Station- Maharajganj, District- Azamgarh during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the first information report, the applicant along with five named co-accused is alleged to have caused the death of the husband of the informant. Further, in the alleged incident, two persons namely Chandan Nishad and Puttul Nishad received injuries which were found simple in nature and in the statements of the injured recorded under Section 180 BNSS, the role of causing injuries by spear (bhala) to the deceased has been assigned to co-accused Rambachan Nishad, Satai Nishad and Sandeep Nishad. A vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as principal offender who caused injuries to the deceased. The case of the applicant is clearly distinguishable from that of other co-accused. It is next contended that identically placed co-accused Arjun Nishad has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 7.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31588 of 2025. The applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 31.7.2025 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sunita Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Hemant Kumar Singh Yogesh Nishad .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Learned AGA as well as counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that in the alleged incident, the husband of the informant died and two persons namely Chandan Nishad and Puttul Nishad received injuries which were found simple in nature and in the statements of the injured recorded under Section 180 BNSS, the role of causing injuries by spear (bhala) to the deceased has been assigned to co-accused Rambachan Nishad, Satai Nishad and Sandeep Nishad. A vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. Identically placed co-accused Arjun Nishad has been granted bail by this Court. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than two months and after submission of the charge-sheet 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 delay the trial 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 Yogesh Nishad, involved in the aforesaid case 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 the conditions that he: (i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; (ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and, (iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses. 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 9, 2025 S.S. BAIL No. 32084 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad