HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13427 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Niraj Kumar Tiwawri, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party. 2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 545 of 2025, under Section 105 B.N.S., Police Station Sikandrarau, District Hathras during the pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 04.12.2025, whereas the first information report was lodged on 05.12.2025. The delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. As per the first information report, the applicant along with three accused is alleged to have assaulted the son of the informant. The son of the informant succumbed to his injuries on 05.12.2025. As per the postmortem report, a single injury was found on the head region. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death is coma and shock due to ante mortem head injury. It is contended that a vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender who caused the head injury. It is next contended that as per the statement of the independent witnesses namely Mangal Singh and Kedari, the deceased was under the influence of liquor and the incident had occurred due to sudden quarrel without any premeditation. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 22.12.2025 having no criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Babali, Pushpendra Kumar, Ramdhan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Banti Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that as per the postmortem report, a single injury was found on the head region. A vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender who caused the head injury. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for almost four months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and 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, therefore, 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- Banti Kumar, 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 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. April 23, 2026 SKT/- BAIL No. 13427 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad