HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9519 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. In the prosecution case it is alleged that on 22.03.2025 at about 23:40 hours, when the informant and his wife, Sarika Srivastava, were walking on the terrace of their house, 5?7 persons arrived at the hostel situated in front of their house and started assaulting the residents of the said hostel. The informant and his wife went to the corner of the terrace and asked the said persons to stop fighting, warning them that otherwise the police would be informed. At first, those persons retreated, but soon thereafter they returned and opened fire at the informant and his wife with two firearms, as a result of which the informant?s wife sustained a gunshot injury. The informant immediately took his wife in an injured condition to the Medical College, where the doctors declared her dead. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not been named in the FIR. No test identification parade has been conducted, and none of the prosecution witnesses have named the applicant. The prosecution story in the FIR stands contradicted by the postmortem report, wherein the antemortem injury shows the presence of blackening around one wound, which is improbable since, according to the prosecution case, the firing was done by the accused-applicant from the ground floor while the victim was standing on the first-floor terrace. It is further submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated merely on the basis of his confessional Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sudhaker Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Kartikey Dixit @ Anga .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) statement. The applicant has also explained his criminal history of one case in the para 20 of the bail application. It is pointed out that the charge sheet has already been filed and that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 25.03.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accused Puneet Mishra who was assigned the similar role has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 24.09.2025 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 9248 of 2025. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks parity with the order of the co-accused. 5. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. 7. On due consideration to the fact applicant's confessional statement does not find corroboration from any independent witness; the nature of the antemortem injuries also prima facie does not support the prosecution version; bail order of co-accused Puneet Mishra, coupled with the fact that the applicant is in custody since 25.03.2025 and has no criminal antecedents, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail 8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant Kartikey Dixit @ Anga involved in Crime/FIR No. 035/2025 U/s 190/191(2)/191(3)/115 (2)/351(3)/103(1) & 61(2) B.N.S. and 3/25 Arms Act P. S. Sairpur, District- Lucknow, be released on bail on his 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) 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 BAIL No. 9519 of 2025 2 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 in accordance with law. (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 IPC (now Section 209 of BNS). 10. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. September 26, 2025 R.C. BAIL No. 9519 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench