HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31661 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State- opposite party. 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.170 of 2025, under Section 105, 115(2) B.N.S.S., Police Station Jamunapar, District Mathura during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The name of the applicant was disclosed by independent witnesses, namely, Shyam Bihari, Gopi, Raju, Meena, Sanjeev and Bijendra. As per the medical report, the deceased sustained two injuries, one contusion on left arm with underline bone fracture and second sutured wound present on right leg with underlying bone fractured. In the opinion of the doctor, the deceased died due to septicemia. It is contended that the nature of the two injuries sustained by the injured shows that there was no intent to cause death. The deceased sustained injuries on account of sudden quarrel between the applicant and the informant. The applicant is in jail since 24.05.2025 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Hari Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The name of the applicant was disclosed by independent witnesses. The deceased sustained two injuries, one contusion on left arm with underline bone fracture and second sutured wound present on right leg with underlying bone fractured. In the opinion of the doctor, the deceased died due to septicemia. Further the applicant has no criminal antecedents. He has remained confined for more than five 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 Hari Singh, 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 7, 2025 Radhika BAIL No. 31661 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad