HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31465 of 2026 Court No. - 69 HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J. 1. Heard Sri A.P. Tewari, learned counsel for accused applicant Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant accused- Anuj Nath Paswan to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 345 of 2026, under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 109(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 3(5) of BNS, P.S.- Cantt., District- Gorakhpur during the pendency of trial. 3. It is the contention of learned counsel for accused applicant that the accused applicant has been falsely implicated during investigation in FIR dated 7.7.2026 lodged by the uncle of injured Sonu with the allegation that 5 to 6 anonymous boys had assaulted the injured at about 09:00 pm with the lathi danda and sharp edged weapon. It is further contended that during investigation, the statement of the injured Prince Kumar was recorded under Section 180 BNSS wherein he has disclosed the name of the accused persons including the accused applicant. It is further contended that Prince Kumar sustained one injury as has been shown in the medico legal examination carried out at District Hospital, Gorakhpur wherein one stitch wound was shown and according to the doctor, there is no opinion drawn for the injuries, he sustained. It is further contended that there is no medico legal examination carried out on injured Sonu. The only report of NCCT head was available, which shows that there is post Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Adya Prasad Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Arvind Kumar Singh, G.A. Anuj Nath Paswan .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) operative wound detected in the right fronto-parietal and temporal area, which is also not corroborated to the incident that is shown in the FIR. It is further contended that there is oral statement of the injured and there is mark inconsistency in the number of person, who have assaulted. It is further contended that there is no reason and motive assigned for the said assault. The charge sheet has been submitted. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is languishing in jail since 7.7.2026. He seeks enlargement of accused on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have opposed the bail and submits that there is CCTV footage on the basis of which, the accused persons have been identified. The complicity of the accused is apparent from the record that he was also one of the assailant. The investigation is continuing. As such, submits that the bail application should be rejected. 5. Countering the arguments, learned counsel for the informant submits that there is no test identification parade in pursuance to the alleged CCTV footage, which according to the learned counsel is not available. He further submits that there is no certificate of CCTV footage taken on the case diary so far. 6. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Considering the nature and number of injuries and number of accused persons as well as there is no specific role attributed on the accused applicant for committing the offence, the accused applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 8. Hence, without touching merit of the case, the bail application is allowed. 9. The accused/applicant 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 court concerned in view of observation made by the Supreme Court in its dictums of Girish Gandhi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2024) 10 SCC 674] and Policy Strategy for grant of bail in BAIL No. 31465 of 2026 2 re [(2024)10SCC 685]. 10. The accused-applicant shall cooperate in judicial process for fair and speedy disposal. September 8, 2026 Krishna* BAIL No. 31465 of 2026 3 (Avnish Saxena,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad