HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34673 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Nagendra Kumar Mihsra, learned Brief Holder for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record. 2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.0298 of 2026, under Sections 248(1), 238(1), 3(5), 61(2) of the B.N.S. and Section 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station- Kaptanganj, District- Kushi Nagar, during the pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the first information report. As per the allegations contained therein, the named co-accused persons and an unknown person are alleged to have fired at the informant's son, who sustained injury on his thigh. Further, the informant in his second statement stated that in order to falsely implicate the named accused persons, he had himself caused the said injury. It is next contended that only the role of conspiracy has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant was neither present at the place of occurrence nor has any concern with the alleged incident. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 22.08.2026 having no criminal antecedents and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned Brief Holder for the State has 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 the applicant was not named in the first information report. The informant in his second statement stated that in order to falsely implicate the named accused persons, he had himself caused the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Satyam Tiwari .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) said injury. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than a month 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 delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant Satyam Tiwari, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the 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; (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. September 29, 2026 Abhishek BAIL No. 34673 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma, J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad