HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9997 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record. 2. This is the third bail application on behalf of the applicant who seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.024 of 2021, under Section 147, 148, 302/34 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Raebareli. First bail application was rejected by this Court on 30.08.2022. Second bail application was rejected on 01.09.2025 in which it was observed that no one appeared for the applicant. 3. While arguing the present third bail application, learned counsel for the applicant argues that in terms of the FIR it was alleged that the applicant alongwith the co-accused had come and had caused firearm injuries on the brother of the informant which resulted in his death. 4. In the light of the said, it is argued that in the FIR, no role of firing was assigned to the applicant but was assigned to co-accused Furkhan. Subsequently, my attention is also drawn to the statement where once again it was stated that on account of an old enmity, the applicant had caused the offence in question. Specific role of firing was assigned to the co-accused Furkhan. Similar statement was given by the other witness also. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that during trial one of the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bal Keshwar Srivastava, Rishabh Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Jiya Ul .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) witnesses has stated that the co-accused Furkhan had caused the firearm injury which had hit the deceased on his chest and the applicant had caused the firearm injury which hit him on the head. He also stated that he had seen the actual incident. In the light of the said, my attention is drawn to the statement of the doctor who had stated that two injuries were noticed on the body of the deceased - one on the head which is lacerated wound and the other on the chest. In his opinion, the injury on the head was a lacerated wound and there was no fracture on the skull and no bullet mark was seen on the head, which according to him, can happen also on account of a fall. 6. In sum and substance, it is argued that out of the two injuries reflected in the postmortem report, the one which had caused the death was firearm injury on the chest which was assigned to the co-accused Furkhan and not to the applicant. It is further argued that it is also apparent from the report sent by the trial Court that all the fact witnesses have been examined and only the I.O. is to be examined. The applicant has suffered the pre-trial detention of almost five years and is in custody since 09.01.2021 having no criminal antecedents. 7. Learned AGA, on the other hand, opposes the bail application by arguing that the trial Court report reveals that the applicant had made all the efforts to delay the trial as the cross-examination continued for a substantial long time at the behest of all the accused. He, however, does not dispute that the applicant is in custody since 09.01.2021 and has no criminal antecedents. 8. Considering the fact that all the fact witnesses have been examined and the applicant has suffered pre-trial detention of almost five years and has no criminal antecedents coupled with the evidences as discussed above, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant Jiya Ul be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions: (a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings; BAIL No. 9997 of 2025 2 (b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and (c) 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. 10. It is made clear that the co-accused Furkhan shall not be entitled to claim parity with this order. November 28, 2025 nishant BAIL No. 9997 of 2025 3 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench