Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:11256 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33993 of 2024 Applicant :- Aryan Alias Chunnu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashish Pandey,G.A.,Nikil Pathak,Sunil Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri Nikhil Pathak, counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State-opposite party. 2. The instant bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 116 of 2024, under Sections 307, 308, 325, 452, 323, 352, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station Simbhawali, District Hapur, during the pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the allegations in the First Information Report, four persons including the applicant are alleged to have assaulted Sumit @ Rinku. As per the medical report the injured Sumit @ Rinku received 14 injuries. As per supplementary medical report the injured received a fracture on the skull region whereas other injuries were found on the non vital parts of the body. It is contended that the author of the injury on the skull of the injured was not known. Even in the statement of the injured a vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 04.07.2024. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph 22 of the bail application. In case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have 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 a vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The author of the injury on the head of injured Sumit @ Rinku was not known. At this stage, there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than six 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 merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant Aryan @ Chunnu, involved in the aforesaid 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 the conditions that he: (i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; (ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (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. Order Date :- 22.1.2025 Manish Kr Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad