Bharat v. State of U.P

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33579 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶1List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant today is taken on record.

¶2Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anshu Chaudhary, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶3Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 187 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 109(1), 61(2) of BNS, Police Station Linepar, District Firozabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶4As per prosecution story, the applicant along with three other co-accused persons are stated to have assaulted and caused stab wound and other injuries to son of the informant on 02.08.2025 at about 8:30 p.m.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence.

¶6Learned counsel has next stated that the FIR is delayed by four hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons, although subsequently statement of the injured person was recorded and the role of causing the said stab wound has been assigned to co-accused Rahul who was not named in the FIR.

¶7The criminal history assigned to the applicant stands explained. The Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anshu Chaudhary, G.A. Bharat .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) applicant is languishing in jail since 03.08.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶9In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶10Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record and taking into consideration the fact that there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons except Rahul who has stabbed the injured, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶11Let the applicant-Bharat, who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial.

ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶12In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶13It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. (Krishan Pahal,J.) September 26, 2025 Sumit S BAIL No. 33579 of 2025

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad