HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34136 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the material available on record. 3. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 53 of 2026, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1), 105 B.N.S., Police Station- Dubauliya, District- Basti during pendency of the trial. 4. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the allegations contained in the first information report, nine named accused including the applicant and unknown persons are alleged to have abused, threatened and assaulted the father and grand-father of the informant. The grand-father of the informant succumbed to his injuries. According to the post-mortem report conducted on 29.03.2026, the deceased sustained three injures on the head region. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death is shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem head injury. As per the statements of the informant and the injured Ramu Kashyap, recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. also no specific role has been assigned to the applicant. It is contended that vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender who caused injury on the head of the deceased. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 30.03.2026 having no criminal antecedents and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajesh Maurya, Sanjeev Kumar Verma, Suresh Chandra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Radhe Shyam .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State have 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 a vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Moreover, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained confined for more than five months and after submission of the charge sheet 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 Radhe Shyam, 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 24, 2026 S.S. BAIL No. 34136 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad