HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8010 of 2026 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. None is present on behalf of the informant even in the revised call. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri R.K. Paramhans Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajnikant Rai, learned AGA for the State. 4. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.266 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS, Police Station Bhatni, District Deoria, during pendency of the trial. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however applicant is named in the FIR alongwith others but only general role has been assigned to all the accused. 6. He further argued, from the postmortem report it reflects, deceased sustained only single injury. However, as per prosecution as many as six persons made assault upon him therefore prima facie it appears to be a case of over implication. 7. He next submits, even co-accused Mithilesh Yadav has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 14.07.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.23772 of 2026 and case of applicant is at par with him. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manvendra Narain Pathak, Ram Krishna Paramhans Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Amit Kumar Yadav, G.A., Karunesh Pratap Singh Rahul Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 8. He further argued, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 10.12.2025 i.e. for last more than nine months. 9. Per contra, learned AGA however opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. However, as per allegation applicant alongwith six others made assault upon the deceased due to which he died but from the postmortem report it reflects, deceased sustained single injury therefore prima facie it appears to be a case of over implication. 12. Further, even only general role has been assigned to all the accused. 13. Further, co-accused Mithilesh Yadav has been released on bail by this Court and case of applicant is at par with him. 14. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 10.12.2025 i.e. for last more than nine months. 15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 16. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 17. Let the applicant - Rahul Yadav 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. (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 BAIL No. 8010 of 2026 2 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. 18. 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. 19. 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 Shahroz BAIL No. 8010 of 2026 3 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAHROJ ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad