HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33307 of 2026 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Heard Sri Amritesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Manvendra Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 597 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 3(5), 109(1), 115(2), 131, 74, 352, 351(3) BNS and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Gauribazar, District Deoria, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however applicant is named in the FIR alongwith three others including co-accused Kishan Vishwakarma and according to the FIR, applicant alongwith others made assault due to which one person died and some persons sustained injuries but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false. 4. He further submitted that during investigation informant side could not place medical report of any other injured and therefore, it reflects, there is no injured of the case. 5. He further submitted that however informant and other witnesses reiterated the version of the FIR and in the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer they assigned only general role to all the accused but when the statement of the victim was recorded then however she initially assigned general role of assault to all the accused but in mid of her statement, she categorically stated that co-accused Kishan Vishwakarma caused head injury to the deceased. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amritesh Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Hashim Khan, Manvendra Kumar, Mithilesh Kumar Mantu Vishwakarma .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 6. He further submitted that post mortem report suggests that deceased sustained single injury on his head and therefore, from the statement of the victim it reflects, this injury was attributed to co-accused Kishan Vishwakarma. 7. He further submitted that co-accused Kishan Vishwakarma has been released on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 8.9.2026 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 19435 of 2026 and considering the statement of victim case of applicant is on better footing than him. 8. He further submitted that applicant is having no previous criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 10.6.2026 i.e. for last three and half months. 9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. However, applicant is named in the FIR alongwith others but in the FIR and in the statements of witnesses, except the statement of victim, only general role has been assigned to all the accused. 12. Further from the statement of the victim recorded during investigation it reflects, although initially she also assigned general role of assault to all the accused but thereafter she categorically stated that co-accused Kishan Vishwakarma caused head injury to the deceased. 13. Post mortem report suggests that deceased sustained only single injury on his head, therefore, considering the statement of victim it reflects, co- accused Kishan Vishwakarma caused this injury to him. 14. Further, however from the FIR it reflects, apart from the deceased some other persons also sustained injuries in the alleged incident of assault but there is no medical report of any other injured on record to substantiate this allegations made in the FIR and therefore, prima facie it reflects, there is no injured in the case. BAIL No. 33307 of 2026 2 15. Further, co-accused Kishan Vishwakarma who in the light of statement of victim appears to be prime accused has been released on bail by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court and case of applicant is on better footing than him. 16. Further, applicant is having no previous criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter for last three and half months. 17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 19. Let the applicant-Mantu Vishwakarma, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 20. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant. 21. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. September 29, 2026 Ankita BAIL No. 33307 of 2026 3 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad