HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31529 of 2026 Court No. - 82 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. This bail application has been moved on behalf of the accused- applicant/ Tejendra for seeking bail, in Case Crime No.228 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 351(2), 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Jansath, District Muzaffar Nagar, during pendency of trial. 4. This is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 30.04.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7349 of 2026. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant, on the one hand, submits that no such incident ever took place, while, on the other hand, submits that, there is a cross-version of the incident from both sides. The new grounds on which the applicant is seeking enlargement on bail through this application is that during trial, five prosecution witnesses, PW-1 Kalu, PW-2 Kuldeep, PW-3 Sanju, PW-4 Bablu and PW-5 Rishipal, who have not supported the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that, the accused-applicant is languishing in jail in this matter, since 15.12.2025, without having any criminal antecedents and there is no likelihood that, the accused-applicant, after release on bail, may flee from the process of law or will misuse the liberty of bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sunil Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Tejendra .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State opposes the prayer for bail of the applicant. 7. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, it is evident that learned counsel for the applicant submits that, no such incident ever took place. On the other hand, it is submitted that there is a cross-version of the incident from both sides. If the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that, no such incident took place is taken into consideration, then the ground taken by the applicant-accused regarding the existence of a cross-case is self-contradictory and, therefore, has no relevance. Moreover, the plea of the applicant is that five witnesses have been examined and they do not support the prosecution case. However, in the statement of PW-2 namely Kuldeep, it has been stated that the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of witness Kuldeep on 13.12.2025, whereas statement was recorded on 13.01.2026. Similarly, statement of PW-3 namely Sanju stated the statement was allegedly recorded on 13.12.2025, but as per case diary, statement was recorded on 13.01.2026. Similarly, statement of PW-5 namely Rishipal, was allegedly recorded by the Investigating Officer on 13.12.2025, whereas, as per case diary, said statement was recorded on 18.01.2026 and, therefore, statements recorded by these witnesses i.e. PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 become redundant due to difference in the dates. Hence, the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant, Tejendra, is hereby rejected. 8. It is made clear that nothing has been expressed on the merit of the case. September 9, 2026 Mini BAIL No. 31529 of 2026 2 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MINI KANAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad