HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8064 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri ,S.C. Srivastava the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Vishwas Shaswat , the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 97 of 2025, under Sections 3(5), 109, 352, 351(2), 351(3) B.N.S, registered at Police Station Kurwar, District Sultanpur. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged on 02.04.2025 against three named persons and two unknown persons, stating that accused persons came to the informant's brick-kiln and started hurling abuses. When a labour person at the brick-kiln resisted, the accused persons fired a shot at him, which hit him in his leg. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant's involvement in seven other cases has been disclosed in para 21 of the affidavit, in six of which he has been released on bail and in one case, he has not received any summon/notice. 5. The police claimed to have arrested the applicant in connection with a case under the Arms Act and in his custodial statement, he confessed that he had gone to the place of the incident along with a co-accused person- Pawan kumar Maurya. The applicant was sitting with a motorcycle out side the brick-kiln and co-accused- Pawan Kumar Maurya had gone inside and fired a shot and, thereafter, escaped on the motorcycle of the applicant. Co- Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Suresh Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mitrasen Maurya .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) accused Pawan Kumar Maurya has also given a similar statement. The applicant has already been granted bail in the case under the Arms Act, in which he was arrested. 6. The injured person has suffered a gun shot injury on his leg and the role of causing fire arm injury has not been assigned to the applicant. 7. The learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application and he has submitted that a country made pistol has been recovered from the applicant. 8. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he applicant has already been granted bail in the case under the Arms Act arising out of a recovery of pistol from the applicant and there is no allegation that the applicant had fired any shot with a pistol in the present case. 9. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail. 10. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed. 11. Let the applicant -Mitrasen Maurya be released on bail in aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to the following conditions: - (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court. August 27, 2025 Preeti. BAIL No. 8064 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench