HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34655 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anupam Anand, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the record. 2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 77 of 2026, under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 105 B.N.S., and 3/25(1-B)a Arms Act, Police Station- Ushait, District- Budaun during 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 contained in the first information report, the applicant along with three accused is alleged to have assaulted the informant's father. The informant's father was taken to the District Hospital, Budaun, from where he was referred for higher centre. On his way to the hospital, he succumbed to his injuries. As per the postmortem report, the deceased sustained five injuries namely, (i) abrasion of size 7 cm x 2 cm on right scapila; (ii) abrasion of size 8 cm x 1.5 cm on lower back; (iii) stitched wound 4 in number size of 3 cm in length 15 cm above right ankle; (iv) bruise size of 6 cm x 3 cm on the lower end of right leg; and (v) contusion size of 5 cm x 4 cm over the left side of skull. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death is shock and coma due to antemortem head injury. It is contended that the injury no.5 was the fatal injury. A vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender, who caused the injury no.5 to the deceased. Identically placed co-accused Vikas has been granted bail by this court vide order dated 7.9.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pankaj Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Dharmveer .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) No.30092 of 2026 (Vikas vs. State of U.P.). The applicant claims parity. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 22 of the bail application and in para 2 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 21.4.2026. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned Brief Holder for the State 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 applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender, who caused the injury no.5 to the deceased. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for more than five months and 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 intimidate the witness, 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, Dharmveer involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that: i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness; iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court. 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. September 29, 2026 S.S. BAIL No. 34655 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad