HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32262 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Sheetla Prasad Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 176 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 351(3), 118(1) of BNS, Police Station Lalganj, District Basti, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, co-accused Niraj Pandey is stated to have caught hold of the informant and the applicant and his brother Manjeet are stated to have assaulted him with sharp edged weapon at the abdomen causing stab wound on 24.06.2025 at about 9:30 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. 6. Learned counsel has next stated that the FIR is delayed by about 14 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Even the medical report does not corroborate the prosecution story. The medical report has been prepared after the said wound was healed, as such the applicant is entitled for bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sheetala Prasad Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sandeep Kumar Vishwakarma .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 7. The criminal history assigned to the applicant stands explained as the said incident shown against the applicant is of the year 1998 and the year of birth of the applicant is 1992, as such the applicant has been falsely implicated as he was barely six years old at the time of incident. The applicant is languishing in jail since 09.07.2025 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. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the injured person is the informant himself, as such after getting healed up, he has instituted the FIR but he has nominated the applicant to be one of the main perpetrator of the crime causing stab wounds to him. As per CT-scan, fracture of frontal bone to the injured person was observed, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record and taking into consideration the delay of 14 days in institution of the FIR, 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- Sandeep Kumar Vishwakarma, 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 the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with 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 BAIL No. 32262 of 2025 2 independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. September 19, 2025 Sumit S BAIL No. 32262 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad