JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Km. Pooja Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and also perused the material placed on record. 2. By means of the present bail application, the applicant-Abbu Sahma seeks bail in Case Crime No. 163 of 2022, under Sections 304, 308 IPC and section 5 Explosive Substances Act, Police Station Dariyabad, District Barabanki, during the pendency of trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that an FIR was lodged on 23.5.2022 by the complainant S.I. Suresh Chandra Mishra against the applicant and coaccused Sultan alleging therein that when on 22.5.2002, In charge out post Dariybad Sub Inspector Surendra Mishra alongwith some constables was on foot patrol from the outpost in the town of Dariyabad, he received information through mobile phone that explosion has been done in the vehicle in village Saraishah Alam, in which three persons have seriously been injured. On that information, he alongwith his force team reached on spot and saw that three persons in vehicle No. UP 41 T6010 Tata 407 were suffering from serious injuries on account of explosion. Thereafter, they were brought to CHC Mathuranagar for their treatment and during the course of treatment one injured Raju died. It is further alleged therein that that co-accused Sultan had his own marriage and after getting married he came to his village with his wife. On the occasion of happiness of marriage, co-accused Sultan wanted to get nautanki exhibited in his village. He said to the applicant who was owner of the nautanki to come to the village and organize an nautanki party, upon which the applicant after loading explosive substances and articles of nautanki programme in his own vehicle reached at village Saraishah Alam at about 19:00 O'clock alongwith Raju, Banwari Lal, Dhannu and Ayub. Co-accused Sultan asked the accused applicant to quickly unload the articles and start the nautanki programme very soon. Due to this rush in unloading the articles, an explosion took place in the vehicle and three persons sustained injuries who were taken to CHC where injured Raju was declared died by doctor and other two injured namely Banwari Lal and Dhannu was referred to District Hospital. Due to negligence of applicant and co-accused Sultan the alleged incident occurred. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Due to negligence of applicant and co-accused Sultan the alleged incident occurred. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. The applicant has no role in causing the alleged explosion. The ammunition (explosive substance) which is used on the occasion of marriage was kept in the vehicle and the applicant and nautanki team were also going in the said vehicle. The injured were also doing drama in Nautanki and the explosion was caused due to unavoidable circumstances. Thus there is no role of the applicant or any other co-accused person named in the FIR for causing the alleged explosion. It is a case of accident and the death was unintentional, for which the applicant is not responsible, even though the statements of the independent witnesses were recorded in which they have also stated that it is case of accident and there was no involvement of the applicant in causing the alleged explosion. As per the post mortem examination report of deceased cause of death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante mortem blast injuries. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that there is vast material contradiction in the statements of the independent witnesses and the version of FIR. As per the version of FIR and the statements of the independent witnesses no specific role has been assigned to the applicant. No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicant or at his pointing out. The statement of injured namely Dhannu has neither been recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. nor has been made witness of charge sheet. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant referred to the statement of one independent witness Askgar Ali under section 161 Cr.P.C. who was working as Joker in Nautanki, in which he stated that co-accused Shiv Kumar who was also working in Nautanki team had kept Baruud in his bag and while dragging articles in hurried manner, the Baruud suddenly exploded, due to which the alleged incident occurred. It is a case of accident and as per his statement no role has been assigned to the applicant. 7. It is a case of accident and as per his statement no role has been assigned to the applicant. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the role of applicant was of carrying the explosive substance in his vehicle and while unloading the nautanki articles from the vehicle the ammunition (explosive substances) kept in the vehicle blasted. Thus it is a case of accident. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, co-accused Shiv Kumar, who is identically placed and similar allegation has been levelled as of the applicant, has already been granted bail by a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 8.8.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7885 of 2022 and the case of the present applicant is not on the worse footing than that of the said co-accused, has already been granted bail by this Court , thus the bail application of the applicant may also be considered by this Court sympathetically and the applicant is also entitled for the benefit of the same and to be released on bail. 9. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. The applicant undertakes that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 24.5.2022 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. 10. Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that due to action of the applicant the blast took place and one person died but did not dispute the fact that on similar allegation co-accused Shiv Kumar has already been granted bail by a coordinate bench of this Court. 11. 10. Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that due to action of the applicant the blast took place and one person died but did not dispute the fact that on similar allegation co-accused Shiv Kumar has already been granted bail by a coordinate bench of this Court. 11. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, considering the fact that the applicant and three injured person including deceased were sitting in the vehicle and the explosive substances and nautanki articles were kept in the vehicle, while unloading the nautanki articles the explosive substances blasted, as per the version of FIR and the statements of the independent witnesses no role has been assigned to the applicant in causing the explosion and it is a case of accident; there is vast material contradiction in the statements of the independent witnesses and the version of FIR; on similar allegation the aforesaid co-accused has already been granted bail by a coordinate bench of this Court, therefore, the case of the present applicant also does not appear to be on the worse footing than that of the aforesaid co-accused, thus the bail application of the present applicant is being considered by this Court sympathetically and further considering the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 12. The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed. 13. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 12. The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant Abbu Sahma involved in Case Crime No. 163 of 2022, under Sections 304, 308 IPC and section 5 Explosive Substances Act, Police Station Dariyabad, District Barabanki, be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :- (1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice. (3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment. (4) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. (5) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (6) The applicant shall remain present in person, before the trial court on the date fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii)recording of statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. (7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad. (8) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. 14. (8) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. 14. It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of the applicant's bail. 15. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.