A bail application can be granted when no specific role is identified for the accused in the FIR, considering the principles of pre-trial rights and the mandate of Article 21.

JUDGMENT :

SANTOSH RAI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sandeep Kumar Chaudhary, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

2. This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Deepak Kumar Chauhan seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.190 of 2024, under Sections 147, 506 and 307 I.P.C., P.S. Lar, District Deoria.

3. Tersely, as per allegations contained in the F.I.R., accused applicant and five other accused persons have caused injury to the injured with hard and blunt object and sharp edged weapon (knife).

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. No specific and separate role has been assigned to the applicant either in the F.I.R. or in the statement of the injured. In the medical report three lacerated wounds were noted, in the X-ray report NAD has been detected. It is further argued that applicant has criminal history of three cases which have been explained in para-2 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 19.07.2025. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above as also the facts that though accused applicant along with five other accused persons are named but no specific and separate role has been assigned to the applicant either in the F.I.R. or in the statement of the injured, common and general role has been assigned to six accused persons regarding causing injuries by hard and blunt object and sharp edged weapon but only three injuries are noted in the medical report, in the X-ray report NAD is noted, as per instructions of learned A.G.A. dated 16.09.2025, investigation is going on and keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case ofManish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement , 2024 (SC) Law Suit 677 , dictum of Apex Court inUnion of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 and Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned.

(iv) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement of accused personally to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.

(v) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial a