HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7342 of 2024 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State, Shri Neeraj Kumar Baghel, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. 3. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.314 of 2023, under sections 302, 307, 504, 506, 34 IPC and Sections 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Aaspur Devsara, District Pratapgarh. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that in terms of FIR it was alleged that on 10.9.2023 father of informant was coming home and at a point in between two places three person came on motorcycle and hit him with firearm. It was stated that it was seen that the co accused Durgesh Pandey was accompanied by two persons whose faces were covered. It was also stated that when the informant tried to stop they were also fired upon however they could not be adversely affected and all the 3 accused ran away on a motorcycle. Subsequently in the statement recorded after about 1 month the applicant was also identified of having caused the offence of firearm injury. The statement of one of eye witness Satyam Tiwari is on record which states that all three persons had caused the firearm injury. In the said statement the applicant was not identified. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sheo Prakash Singh, Anamika Singh, Satendra Kumar (Singh) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Jay Krishna Shukla Nandan Singh .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) not named in the FIR and his name emerged on the statement of the informant recorded about one month after the incident and thus apart from the said statement the material to implicate the applicant is missing. 5. Learned A.G.A. for the State on the other hand while opposing the bail application argues that the applicant was identified and recovery of country made weapon was also done at the instance and pointing out of the applicant and considering the gravity of the offence, the bail application may be rejected. 6. It is argued that the applicant has criminal history of as many as 22 cases which are serious in nature. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant has been enlarged on bail in most of the case except one case in which the applicant was alleged to have committed the offence of Gangster Act after the present case was committed and one case of Section 386, the applicant has not been summoned. 7. Post mortem report on record indicates two gunshot injuries on the chest which also is the cause of death. 8. Considering the long criminal history of the applicant coupled with the fact that there is recovery of weapon against the applicant no good ground for bail is made out. The bail application is rejected. The applicant would be at liberty to apply for bail afresh after the fact witness are examined. December 2, 2025 J. K. Dinkar BAIL No. 7342 of 2024 2 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench