HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31593 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Yogesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anant Ram Gupta, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.77 of 2024, under Sections 323, 324, 308, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Matsena, District- Firozabad, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith three other named accused persons is stated to have assaulted and caused injuries to the victim on 11.4.2024 at about 06:00 a.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 there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons including the applicant. It is true that there were fracture observed on right fronto-temporal bones of the victim, but the said injury was not dangerous to the life of the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Noor Muhammad, Yogesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anant Ram Gupta, G.A. Sugreev .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) injured person. 7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 3.8.2025 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 A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the injuries were grievous in nature and were dangerous for the life of injured person as undisplaced fracture of right fronto-temporal bones was observed coupled by the fact that collection of blood attenuation with maximum thickness 9.5 mm was noted in the right fronto-temporal region extradural hemorrhage. As such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 9. Learned counsel for the informant has further argued that the injured person herein was an eye-witness in an earlier case instituted against the applicant regarding attempt to murder and in order to dissuade him from deposing in the said case, the instant offence has been committed by the applicant and other accused persons. 10. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case of bail is made out. 11. 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 of nine hours in institution of FIR and there being general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons coupled with the fact that criminal antecedent of the applicant has been explained, 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. 12. Let the applicant- Sugreev, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties BAIL No. 31593 of 2025 2 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. 13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 14. 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 23, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 31593 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad