HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24726 of 2026 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Heard Sri Pawan Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gaurav Tripathi, learned counsel for informant and Sri Vijay Bahadur Maurya, learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 42 of 2025, under Sections 190(2), 191(2), 191(3), 103(1), 109, 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS, Police Station Bithauli, District Etawah during pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, applicant is named in the FIR along with others and as per allegation due to the assault made by applicant and others one person died and three persons sustained injuries but admittedly informant of the case was not the eye witness. 4. He further submits, however when the statements of injured persons were recorded then they also disclosed the name of applicant but from their statements it is apparent that co-accused Vivek caused injuries to the deceased through axe due to which he died. 5. He further submits, however, as per injured witnesses applicant also participated in the alleged incident and also made assault upon them and according to them he was having spear but from the medical reports of the injured and deceased it could not be reflected, they sustained any injury caused by spear. 6. He further submits, applicant is innocent and he never participated in the alleged incident. He further submits, in the present matter applicant is in jail Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pawan Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Gaurav Tripathi Sohan Urf Gore .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) since 13.11.2025 i.e. for last ten months. 7. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submit, applicant equally participated along with other accused and however from the statements of injured witnesses it reflect, co-accused Vivek was the person who caused axe injury to the deceased but from the medical reports of the injured witnesses it cannot be said that they did not sustain any injury caused by spear as one injured Ankit also sustained one incised wound. 8. They further submit, considering the facts of the case it is apparent that applicant was also having common object along with other accused. Learned counsel for informant placed reliance on the judgements of the Apex Court passed in the cases of Dablu Etc. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2026 SCC OnLine SC 356 and Shobha Namdev Sonavane Vs. Samadhan Bajirao Sonavane and others 2026 SCC OnLine SC 291. 9. They next submit, therefore, considering the facts of the case, the instant bail application may be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. Applicant is named in the FIR along with four others and according to the FIR applicant and other accused made assault due to which brother of the informant and some other sustained injuries but informant of the case does not appear to be an eye witness. 12. Further, it also reflects, initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Section 109 BNS and other offences but after the death of injured Madhav, the brother of the informant, case has been converted under Section 103(1) BNS. 13. From the record it reflects, in the incident one person died and three persons sustained injuries and however from the statements of injured witnesses it reflect, they also disclosed the name of applicant but according to them co-accused Vivek was the prime accused who through axe caused injury to the deceased. From their statements however it also reflects, applicant also made assault upon them and he was having spear in his hand but injury reports of injured Mohan and Anshul Singh show, they sustained lacerated wounds and contusions and therefore prima facie their injuries BAIL No. 24726 of 2026 2 could not be attributed to the applicant. 14. Further, however, from the medical report of the injured Ankit it reflects, apart from the contusion he also sustained one incised wound but according to the injured Ankit and other injured co-accused Vivek was having axe in his hand and he also made assault upon them therefore even from the medical report of injured Ankit prima facie it cannot be said that applicant caused injury to him as prima facie it appears, even he did not sustain any injury allegedly caused by spear and his incised wound could be caused by axe which was used by co-accused Vivek. 15. 15. Further, however, learned counsel for informant and learned AGA submit, it is a case in which more than five persons made assault, therefore, they were having common object to commit the instant crime but as according to the prosecution applicant was having spear in his hand and prima facie it reflects, neither any injured nor deceased sustain any injury caused by spear therefore prima facie his involvement appears to be doubtful. However, learned counsel for informant relied upon two judgments of the Apex Court but facts of the present case are distinguishable from the facts of above cases. As prima facie involvement of the applicant in the present case appears to be doubtful, therefore, with the aid of Section 149 IPC it is not proper to withhold the instant bail application. 16. The Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694 also observed, while considering bail and anticipatory bail the Courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of Section 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern. 17. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 13.11.2025 i.e. for last ten months. 18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 19. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. BAIL No. 24726 of 2026 3 20. Let the applicant - Sohan @ Gore 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 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. 21. 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. 22. 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 AK Pandey BAIL No. 24726 of 2026 4 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad