HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8881 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. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 269/2024, under Sections 191(2),191(3), 190, 103(1),61(2), 3(5) B.N.S. & 3/25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station Baldi Rai, District Sultanpur. 3. The present case was registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 09.10.2024 against five named persons, not including the applicant. As per the F.I.R., while the informant’s cousin, aged about 30 years, was going to attend the call of nature at around 04:30 a.m., the accused persons fired at him with a country-made pistol and thereafter fled on their motorcycles. Some women rushed towards the village shouting that the deceased had been shot. When the informant along with several other villagers reached the spot, they found his cousin lying dead, his body soaked in blood. 4. The post mortem examination report mentions two gun shot entry wounds, one exit wound and cause of death has been opined to be hemorrhage and shock due to ante mortem firearm injury. 5. In the statement of the informant recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., he reiterated the FIR version. The informant did not state as to how did he come to know about the deceased having been shot at by the applicants and two Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vyas Narayan Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sanjay Yadav .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) other persons. 6. The Investigating Officer has recorded that the applicant and two other persons were seen riding a motorcycle in the CCTV camera installed at a toll plaza at Haidergarh, District Barabanki at 09:05:36 on 09.10.2024. The incident has taken place in district Sultanpur. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that co-accused Arjun Yadav, who was attributed the role of firing, has already been granted bail vide order dated 14.05.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3784 of 2025. The applicant has not been assigned the role of firing in the statement of the co-accused; rather, he is only alleged to have provided the weapon. It is further submitted that the case of the applicant stands on a better footing than that of co-accused Aniket Tiwari. The applicant has explained his criminal antecedents in paragraph no. 16 of the bail application. Moreover, co-accused Arjun Yadav and Atul Yadav have already been granted bail vide orders dated 04.02.2025 and 28.02.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 35 of 2025 and 1653 of 2025 respectively, while another co-accused, Lucky Yadav, has also been granted bail vide order dated 20.03.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2224 of 2025. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. Considering the role attributed to the applicant in the statement of co- accused Aniket Tiwari recorded in police custody, the fact that several co- accused have already been granted bail, absence of recovery from the applicant, and further that the applicant is in custody since 27.05.2025, I am of the view that it is a fit case for granting bail to the applicant. 11.Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant Sanjay Yadav involved in aforesaid crime number, 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 BAIL No. 8881 of 2025 2 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 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). 13.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 17, 2025 R.C. BAIL No. 8881 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench