HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33375 of 2026 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Saroj, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kunwar Tejendra Bahadur, learned AGA, for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.111 of 2026, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352 and 103(1) BNS, Police Station Rajatalab, District Varanasi during pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however, applicant was not named in the FIR but during investigation when second statement of the informant was recorded then very casually he disclosed the name of the applicant along with others. He next submits that admittedly informant of the case was not the eye witness. 4. He further argued that during investigation Investigating Officer recorded the statement of one Himanshu, in whose function incident occurred and he was the eye witness and he, however, also disclosed the name of the applicant but he assigned specific role of causing knife injuries to the deceased to co-accused Himanshu S/o Late Raj Kumar. 5. He further argued that post mortem report also suggests that deceased sustained three injuries, which were caused by sharp edged weapon. 6. He further argued that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 19.6.2026 i.e., for almost three months. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Sunil Kumar Saroj Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vivek Kumar Gautam .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 7. Per contra, learned AGA although opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the other argument on facts advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. Applicant was not named in the FIR but it reflects that when Investigating Officer recorded the second statement of the informant then very casually he along with other accused also disclosed the name of the applicant. 10. Further, even informant does not appear to be eye witness. 11. Further, record also suggests that incident occurred in the function of one Himanshu and he was eye witness and when his statement was recorded by Investigating Officer then he, however, also disclosed the name of the applicant along with others but he assigned specific role of causing knife injuries to the deceased to co-accused Himanshu. 12. Further, post mortem report also suggests that deceased sustained injuries through sharp edged weapon, therefore, co-accused Himanshu S/o Late Raj Kumar prima facie appears to be prime accused. 13. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 19.6.2026, i.e., for almost three months. 14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 16. Let the applicant-Vivek Kumar Gautam 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. BAIL No. 33375 of 2026 2 (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. 17. 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. 18. 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 18, 2026 SKM BAIL No. 33375 of 2026 3 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad