HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3664 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nagendra Kumar Mishra, learned Brief Holder for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record. 2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 198 of 2025, under Sections 105, 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station- Nagra, District- Ballia, during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The informant is not an eye-witness to the alleged incident. As per the statements of witnesses namely, Dhirendra Singh and Security Supervisor Raju Yadav, a dispute arose between the applicant, co-accused Manoj Shah and the husband of the informant (since deceased) over a monetary transaction, during which a physical altercation took place, the informant's husband was assaulted by the applicant and other co-accused. Thereafter, the informant's husband went to his house in an injured condition and subsequently died. As per the postmortem report, the deceased sustained four injuries. In the opinion of the doctor, injury no.1 was grievous whereas injury nos.2 to 4 were simple in nature. It is contended that a vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The author of the injury no.1 caused on the head of the deceased is not known. No prior enmity exists between the parties. The incident had occurred at the spur of the moment without any premeditation. The applicant neither possessed the requisite knowledge nor any intention for committing the alleged offence. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Kumar Singh, Sarvesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mohd Azad .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) offence. The applicant is in jail since 20.8.2025 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned AGA has 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 the informant is not an eye-witness to the alleged incident. A vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The author of the injury no.1 caused on the head of the deceased is not known. There was no prior enmity between the parties. At this stage, there is no credible evidence to establish that the applicant had the requisite knowledge or intention to commit the alleged offence. Moreover, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained confined for more than one year and a month and 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 the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant Mohd Azad, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his 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; and, (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 23, 2026 Manish Kr BAIL No. 3664 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad