Bail may be granted when there are significant contradictions between the first and subsequent statements of the injured, a general role is assigned to the accused, parity exists with a co-accused, and the applicant has undergone substantial incarceration.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Vijay Shanker, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Tanay Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kunwar Tejendra Bahadur Singh, learned AGA for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.23 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 109, 309(5) BNS, Police Station Baraut, District Baghpat, during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, according to the FIR, 3-4 unknown persons caused knife injuries to the son of the informant and during investigation applicant has been made accused.

5. He further argued, according to the prosecution, incident was also witnessed by uncle of the injured Liyaqat and he however, disclosed the name of the applicant along with Rajan but only general role has been assigned by him to all the accused.

6. He further argued, during investigation, when first statement of the injured was recorded then he only disclosed the name of co-accused Rajan and Basu and did not even disclose the name of applicant but when after statement of alleged eye-witness Liyaqat, the uncle of the injured his second statement was recorded then he disclosed the name of applicant and stated that applicant caused knife injuries to him.

7. He further argued, subsequent statement of the injured prima facie appears to be un-reliabe as if applicant would have caused injuries to him then he would have disclosed this fact in his first statement.

8. He further argued, even co-accused Rajan has been released on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and his bail order has been annexed along with the instant bail application.

9. He next submits, actually police is highly inimical with the applicant and earlier also in number of false cases of theft police had implicated him and therefore, in this case during investigation applicant has been made accused.

10. He further argued, criminal history of 8 cases of the applicant has been explained in the instant bail application and majority of the cases were of theft and however, one case is of Section 109 BNS but it is a case of police encounter no injury case.

11. He further submits, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 14.02.2025 i.e. for last more than a year.

12. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits, injured in his subsequent statement categorically stated that applicant caused knife injury to him but could not dispute the fact that when his first statement was recorded then he did not even disclose the name of the applicant.

13. Learned AGA further submits, however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of eight other cases but he could not dispute the fact that his criminal history has been explained in the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application and majority of the cases were of theft in which during investigation applicant has been made accused.

14. He further could not dispute the fact that in the present matter applicant is in jail since 14.02.2025 i.e. for last more than a year.

15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the cast.

16. However, it reflects, injured in his second statement recorded during investigation stated that applicant caused knife