The court granted bail due to lack of evidence linking the applicant to a serious injury, emphasizing the importance of individual circumstances in bail decisions.

JUDGMENT :

Sameer Jain, J.

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Nadeem, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 632 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 109(1), 190, 352, 351(3), 118(1) B.N.S., Section 11 Animal Cruelty Act and Section 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station Bahjoi, District Sambhal during pendency of the trial.

3. FIR of the present case was lodged against applicant and six others and according to the FIR due to the assault made by applicant and other accused persons through sharp edge weapon informant and five others sustained injuries.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, on the basis of false allegation applicant has been made accused in the present matter along with six other accused persons. He next submits, only general allegations have been leveled against all the accused including applicant.

5. He further submits, however, as per prosecution, in the alleged incident six persons sustained injuries but except injured Rinku, injuries sustained by all the injured were on their non vital part and however Rinku sustained two injuries on his head but there is no evidence on record, which can suggests that applicant is the author of this injury.

6. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 18.11.2024.

7. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

9. However, as per allegation, applicant and six others made assault through sharp edge weapon due to which six persons sustained injuries but except one injured, it appears all the injured sustained injuries on their non vital part, however, injured Rinku sustained two injuries on his head and one injury appears to be serious in nature but there is no evidence which can suggests that applicant caused this injury.

10. Further, only general allegations have been leveled against all the accused including applicant.

11. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 18.11.2024.

12. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

13. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

14. Let the applicant-Shamim 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.