HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32461 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Shiv Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mahesh Kumar, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.158 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Badagaon, District Jhansi, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have assaulted and caused injuries to three persons in all on 11.06.2024 at about 9:00 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. The FIR is delayed by about seventeen hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is cross version to the instant case as FIR No.160 of 2024 was instituted on behalf of the applicant and three persons had sustained injuries from the side of the applicant as well. At this point of time, it cannot be ascertained as to which party was the aggressor one. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the criminal history of four cases assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 12.05.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shiv Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mahesh Kumar Jitendra Barar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) liberty of bail. 7. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground the applicant had instituted an FIR, in which the applicant himself has been implicated as an accused and the investigation is going on. 8. 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 for bail is made out. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that there is cross version to the instant case, 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. 10. Let the applicant- Jitendra Barar, 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 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 independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. September 22, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 32461 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad