HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5756 of 2026 Court No. - 70 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Purushottam Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record. 2. This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Sumit seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.369 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 352, 115(2), 351(3), 191(2), 3(5), 117(2) B.N.S., Police Station Bhopa, District Muzaffarnagar. 3. Tersely, as per the allegation contained in the FIR six accused persons including the applicant have caused injury with hard and blunt object and sharp weapon to injured persons, namely Rajendra and Raghu. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case due to previous criminal rivalry. Applicant is languishing in jail since 6.12.2025. It is submitted that though applicant is named in the FIR but no specific and separate role of applicant regarding causing grievous injury to the injured persons has been assigned either in the FIR or in the statement of injured persons. It is further submitted that one criminal case being Case Crime No.556 of 2019 was registered by the applicant side against the informant side. It is argued that common and general role of all the accused persons has been assigned in the statement of injured persons. It is further argued that as per the medical report available on record the injuries sustained by the injured person are simple in nature except one grievous injury (fracture in hand) sustained by injured Rajendra Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ravindra Kumar Yadav, Sandeep Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sumit .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) which is on non-vital part but he has not assigned the specific role of causing grievous injury to him. It is next argued that co-accused Ramkumar, Deepak @ Deepu having similar role have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 23.2.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.5395 of 2026, 5588 of 2026 respectively and parity is sought in the matter. It is lastly submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit and since charge-sheet has already been submitted on 21.12.2025, therefore, there is no reasonable possibility of intimidating or pressurizing the prosecution witnesses. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for. 5. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre- trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. It is further submitted that, in case the applicant is released on bail, he may again indulge in similar activities and misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above as also the fact that though applicant is named in the FIR but no specific and separate role of applicant regarding causing grievous injury to the injured persons has been assigned either in the FIR or in the statement of injured persons, one criminal case being Case Crime No.556 of 2019 was registered by the applicant side against the informant side, common and general role of all the accused persons has been assigned in the statement of injured persons, as per the medical report available on record the injuries sustained by the injured person are simple in nature except one grievous injury (fracture in hand) sustained by injured Rajendra which is on non-vital part but he has not assigned the specific role of causing grievous injury to him, co-accused Ramkumar, Deepak @ Deepu having similar role have already been enlarged on bail, charge-sheet has already been submitted, he has no criminal antecedents to his credit, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677, dictum of Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 & Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the BAIL No. 5756 of 2026 2 applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. (ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned. (iv) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement of accused personally to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. (v) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him strictly, in accordance with law. 7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail by the trial court. 8. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. February 24, 2026 RA BAIL No. 5756 of 2026 3 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad