Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:28014 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43255 of 2024 Applicant :- Raj Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jata Shankar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Himanshu Mishra Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri J.S. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 163 of 2024, under Sections 307, 342 IPC and Section 9/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Trans Yamuna, District Agra. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 10.05.2024 against the applicant and two unknown persons, stating that while the informant's son had gone to the house of one Saurabh, the applicant reached along with two unknown persons on his motorcycle and shot at the informant's son at about 08:35 p.m. Saurabh tried to prevent the accused persons but all three of them had illicit weapons and they forcibly took away Prince on their motorcycle to a trisection in Balaji Nagar, assaulted the informant's son there and fired two more shots towards him. The medico legal examination report of the victim mentions fire arm injuries on the forearm and abdomen. The Supplementary medico legal examination report mentions presence of metallic foreign body seen in x-ray examination. The patient was discharged on 27.05.2024. Two of the injuries suffered by him have been opined to be grievous in nature. 4. In the statement of the victim recorded by the Investigating Officer, he categorically stated that the applicant had fired at him. The eye-witness Saurabh also stated that the applicant had shot at the victim and the bullet hit in his abdomen. 5. In the affidavit filed in support of bail application, the applicant's criminal history of another case under Sections 302 IPC has been disclosed. The applicant was granted bail in that case as he was juvenile at the time of the incident. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that both the co-accused persons have already been granted bail. However, the victim and the informant have categorically stated that it was the applicant who had fired the shot which hit the victim in his abdomen and, therefore, the applicant's case is not at par with the case set up against the co-accused persons, who have been granted bail. 7. The learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that it is recorded in the recovery memo that co-accused Deepak had also fired a shot. However, the recovery memo mentions the statement of the applicant only given at the time of recovery of the weapon wherein the applicant had alleged that the Deepak had also fired a shot. Neither the victim not the eye witnesses had stated so. 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts when the FIR allegations are categorically supported by the statements of the victim and the eye witnesses as well as their medico legal examination report, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts do not warrant exercise of discretion of this Court by enlarging the applicant on bail. 9. Accordingly, this bail application stands Rejected. However, as the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.05.2024, an expeditious trial is his Fundamental Right. Therefore, the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial with all possible expedition, by fixing dates at short intervals and by not granting any unnecessary adjournment and to conclude the trial as soon as possible. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Pradeep/- Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad