HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7443 of 2024 . Court No. - 12 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and Sri Amar Nath Dubey, learned Counsel for the informant. 2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.34 of 2024, under Section 302 of IPC and Section 27/30 of Arms Act, Police Station Lambhuwa, District Sultanpur. 3. In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that the son of the informant aged about 33 years was engaged in erection of tents and on the date of the incident, he was erected a tent in which marriage function was solemnized. At about 10:00 PM (night), the labourer of the informant Sabhajeet informed that the son of the informant was killed by two accused, namely, Kallu Tiwari and Meenu Singh along with two unknown persons by firing on his stomach and he was taken in a hospital by vehicle. Subsequently, it was revealed that the son was died on account of firearm injury. The said fact is corroborated by the postmortem report and as per the postmortem report, the cause of death is due to ante mortem fire arm injury. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arun Sinha, Ram Chandra Singh, Umang Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Amar Nath Dubey Hemant Kumar Singh @ Meenu Singh .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy Home Civil Secrt. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) 4. In the light of the aboveaid allegations, it is argued by the Counsel for the applicant that the informant had assigned the role of firing on all the accused and nothing specific was stated as against the applicant. He further argues that the cause of death is due to one entry wound assigned to the firearm injury. He further argues that the applicant is in custody since 19.02.2024 and has no criminal antecedents. The trial has not even started. 5. Learned A.G.A. as well as the Counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail prayer. The Counsel for the complainant argues that apart from the labourer of the informant, one independent eyewitness has also deposed against the applicant as is event from the case diary, which is on record as page 13 of the counter affidavit filed by the State. It is not denied that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. 6. Considering the submissions made at the bar; the role of firing assigned to all the accused including the applicant, however, considering the fact that there were four accused named in the statement and there was one bullet injury, which was the cause of death coupled with the fact that the applicant has suffered substantial pretrial detention of almost two years and has no criminal antecedents; there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant if enlarged on bail, would in any way adversely affect the trial and there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in near future, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. Let the applicant Hemant Kumar Singh @ Meenu Singh be released on bail in the abovesaid first information report number on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: (a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings; (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 BAIL No. 7443 of 2024 2 to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. October 29, 2025 akverma BAIL No. 7443 of 2024 3 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench