Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45022 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 838 of 2025 Applicant :- Suraj Kumar Rathour Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Kapil Dev Mishra,Vipul Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Kapil Dev Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Satyendra Srivastava, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records. 2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.138 of 2020, under Sections 307, 323, 324, 506, 34 I.P.C, registered at Police Station Kotwali Shahar, District Hardoi. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 04.03.2020 against six persons, including the applicant and three unknown persons, stating that all the accused persons had attacked the informant with an intention to kill him. The applicant had fired at the informant with a pistol but the shot missed him. Co-accused Rajaram assaulted on the informant's head with a banka. The informant and his driver Babloo suffered injures in the incident. 4. The medico legal examination form of the informant mentions an incised wound of size 5cm X 1cm, scalp deep present on top of a skull and complain of pain. The informant's driver Babloo had suffered two abrasions on ring finger and little finger of right hand and an abraded contusion on right thigh. 5. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of an independent witness but he stated that the informant had caught hold of the informant's hand and the applicant's father had assaulted him with a banka. He did not level the allegation of firing by the applicant. 6. The Investigating Officer has recorded statement of the doctor, who had conducted the medico legal examination of the informant and the doctor told that the none of the injures were grievous in nature and none of the injuries could be fatal. 7. It is recorded in the case dairy that the applicant was not arrested during investigation and the investigation already stands concluded. 8. In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant's involvement in two other cases has been disclosed in para 24 of the application, in one of which he has been granted bail and in the other case he has not been summed till date. 9. The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter. 10. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the F.I.R alleges that the applicant had fired a shot with a pistol which did not cause injury to any person but the independent witness has not stated about firing of any shot by the applicant and he has merely stated that the applicant had caught hold of hands of the informant; no injury has been caused by the applicant and the injuries caused by the other accused persons are simple in nature; that the applicant was not arrested during investigation and the investigation already stands concluded, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. 11. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant- Suraj Kumar Rathour before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court: (i). that the applicant shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (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 the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court. (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. . (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) Order Date :- 4.8.2025 Preeti. Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench