HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10044 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Counter affidavit filed by the State and the Vakalatnana filed by Sri Pankaj Pandey, on behalf of the complainant are taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and Sri Pankaj Pandey, learned Counsel for the complainant. 3. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.171 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of BNS and Section 3/25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station Mallawa, District Hardoi. 4. In terms of the FIR lodged on 13.05.2025, it was alleged that at about 3:00 AM, in the morning, when the informant was sleeping in home, he heard the sound of firearm and woke up and saw, the applicant along with his cousin brother, shot the daughter of the informant aged about 24 years and ran away. It was also alleged that the applicant wanted to marry with the daughter of the informant and when she refused and the marriage of the daughter was fixed elsewhere, the applicant committed the offence in question. Similar statement was given by the other eyewitness. Subsequently, the confessional statement and recovery of 315 bore country made pistol, the applicant was linked with the offence in question. 5. In the light of the aforesaid, the Counsel for the applicant argues that the postmortem report although indicates the presence of firearm injury of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : S.C. Misra, Indresh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Prem Kumar @ Kallu .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) entry as well as exit, however, if the testimony of the eyewitness is considered to be correct, the same is either upward or downward depending where the deceased was standing. He further argues that from the place incident cartridge of 12 bore was recovered, which did not match with the recovery of the weapon shown against the applicant. He thus argues that the applicant is in custody since 16.05.2025 and no criminal history and is entitled to be released on bail. 6. The Counsel for the complainant strongly opposes the bail prayer by arguing that the eyewitnesses of the incident clearly stated that they had seen the incident and motive has also been disclosed in the statements wherein the applicant wanted to marry with the deceased and the deceased was getting marriage elsewhere. 7. Learned A.G.A. also vehemently opposed the bail prayer. 8. Considering the submissions made at the bar, prima facie, the offence committed by the applicant by the use of firearm, which hit the young girl aged about 24 years; there are eyewitness of the incident and in view of the statements of the eyewitnesses and the nature of the evidence, no good ground for bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 9. It would be open for the applicant to revive his bail after recording the statements of fact witnesses. December 5, 2025 akverma BAIL No. 10044 of 2025 2 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench