Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38891 Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2765 of 2025 Applicant :- Dinesh Chandra Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Kumar Tripathi,Ajay Kumar Mishra,Vineet Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gaurav Chandra Kashyap,Nandu,Vivek Mishra Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant. The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.0381 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109, 117(2) of BNS, 2023, Police Station Majhila, District Hardoi. As per the prosecution case, the incident took place on 22.11.2024 at about 8:30 AM, when the informant was attempting to park his tractor, which suddenly stopped on the way. At that time, the applicant, Dinesh Chandra Pandey, who is the informant’s uncle, asked him to remove the tractor from the path. The informant replied that he was unable to restart the tractor. It is alleged that the applicant made a sarcastic comment and began hurling abuses. On seeing this, the complainant’s son, Amitesh, objected to the applicant's behaviour. It is alleged that the applicant along with his son assaulted the complainant resulting in a fracture injury. Furthermore, it is alleged that the applicant’s wife, Rekha Devi, exhorted him to eliminate the entire family of the complainant, following which the applicant, armed with his licensed firearm, opened fire on the complainant. Although the complainant narrowly escaped, a bullet struck Santosh Devi, wife of Mahesh Chandra Pal. Thereafter, the police were informed via Dial 112, and the injured was admitted to the District Hospital, and thereafter referred to KGMU for further treatment. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that during the course of investigation, the prosecution story, as stated by the complainant, was found to be false by the Investigating Officer, therefore, the names of the co-accused Rekha Devi and Amitesh have been dropped from the charge-sheet. It is further submitted that the complainant sustained only an abraded contusion measuring 1 cm x 2.5 cm, which is a simple firearm injury, and the other injured person, Santosh Devi, suffered a lacerated wound measuring 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on the left side of the back of the chest. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that even according to the admitted case of the prosecution there was no intention of the applicant to cause death or injury to the injured. Her injury appears to have been accidental. As per the prosecution's own version, the firearm was allegedly aimed at the complainant. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report supports and corroborates the prosecution version. Learned counsel for the complainant has further submitted that in case the applicant is enlarged on bail he might repeated the same offence. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record. On due consideration of the facts that the applicant is in judicial custody since 21.12.2024, has no criminal antecedents, and that the incident appears to have arisen out of a trivial dispute, occurring suddenly upon provocation, without there being any opportunity for premeditation or cooling-off period, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Dinesh Chandra Pandey be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions: (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) 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. (iv) 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. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 269 BNS). (vi) 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. (now Section 84 BNSS) 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 (now Section 209 BNS). Order Date :- 9.7.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench