Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:42961 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39078 of 2024 Applicant :- Rinku @ Dungar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Neeja Srivastava,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. Heard Mrs. Neeja Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record. By means of this second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant Rinku @ Dungar, who is involved in Session Trial No. 630 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 02 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/25 Arms Act, police station Jalalpur, district Hamirpur seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.07.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23441 of 2024. As per prosecution case, in brief, with regard to an incident which took place on 01.01.2024, a first information report was lodged by the informant- Jagmohan Lodhi on 02.01.2024 against unknown person under Section 307 IPC alleging inter alia that on 01.01.2024 at 10:30 P.M., his son Nirvendra had gone to see Ramleela where some unknown person fired shot which hit his son's hand. Main substratum of arguments of learned counsel for the applicant is that first information report was lodged against unknown person. During investigation, two persons, namely, Ajeet and Dharmendra Prajapati were apprehended by the police on 04.01.2024 and on their interrogation, they disclosed about the incident dated 01.01.2024 which took place at 10:30 P.M. stating that they alongwith their friends, namely, Rinku @ Dungar (applicant), Munnu @ Pushpendra, Pramod Nishad, Durgesh Khagaar and Nachiketa @ Nikki were present during Ramleela at Bajrangbali Ashram and they fired in the said incident except Nachiketa. Much emphasis has been given by contending that injured Nirvendra has received only one injury on his elbow which is not dangerous to life. From the prosecution case, it is not clear that out of 07 accused persons, who was the author of the said injury. It is also pointed out that before the trial Court, statement of complainant has been recorded as PW-1 on 28.08.2024, in which he has stated inter alia that he does not recognize the applicant Rinku @ Dungar, Munnu @ Pushpendra, Ajeet, Dharmendra Prajapati and Durgesh Khagaar. He is not aware as to who has fired shot on his son. Similarly, injured Nirvendra was examined as PW-2 on 13.09.2024. He also did not identify the applicant. So far as third prosecution witness, namely, Asharam is concerned, it is submitted that he was examined as PW-3 on 17.10.2024 but he has been declared hostile after his examination-in-chief. It is also pointed out that case of the applicant stands on identical footing to that of co-accused Pramod Nishad, Durgesh Kumar, Ajeet Rajpoot and Dharmendra Prajapati, who have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 03.06.2024, 12.06.2024, 04.07.2024 and 25.07.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 21628 of 2024, 21653 of 2024, 22123 of 2024 and 22037 of 2024, hence the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicant has criminal history of 15 cases and in all the cases, he is on bail. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.01.2024 and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant but could not dispute that injured has received only one injury on his elbow, which is not dangerous to life. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that injured has received only one injury on his elbow but author of the said injury is not known from the statement/evidence of complainant and injured. The co-accused Pramod Nishad, Durgesh Kumar, Ajeet Rajpoot and Dharmendra Prajapati under similar accusation have been granted bail. So far as criminal history of the applicant is concerned, I find that except two cases of Section 307 IPC, all other cases are not heinous in nature and in all those cases, he is on bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, evidence, complicity of the accused, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail on the ground of parity. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. Let the applicant Rinku @ Dungar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned. In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail. Order Date :- 24.3.2025 Shubham Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad