HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28096 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 144 of 2026, under Sections 105, 352 B.N.S., Police Station- Sukhpura, District- Ballia during pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the allegations in the first information report the applicants along with two others are alleged to have assaulted the informant's son. During course of treatment at Global Hospital, the informant's son died. As per the postmortem report, the deceased sustained four injuries namely, (i) contusion on right triceps; (ii) contusion over-right upper scapular region present; (iii) contusion over cervical region present; and (iv) scalp hematoma over upper occepital region. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death is hemorrhagic shock due to antemortem injury. It is contended that there is no prior enmity between the parties. The incident had occurred at spur of the moment without any premeditation. No weapon of assault has also been assigned to the applicants. Vague and general allegations have been levelled against the applicants. The applicants neither had any requisite knowledge nor the intention to commit the offence. The criminal history of the applicant no.1 has been explained in para 3 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant no.2 has no criminal history. The Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Bhola Rajbhar And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) applicants are in jail since 22.6.2026. In case they are enlarged on bail, they will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned A.G.A. for the State 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 no weapon of assault has been assigned to the applicants. Vague and general allegations have been levelled against the applicants. At this stage there is no credible evidence to establish that the applicant possessed the requisite knowledge or the intention to commit the offence. Further the applicants has presently remained confined for almost three months 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 applicants, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicants, Bhola Rajbhar and Rajesh Rajbhar involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that: i. the applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; ii. the applicants shall not pressurize the prosecution witness; iii. the applicants shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court. 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 21, 2026 S.S. BAIL No. 28096 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad