HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11854 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. The accused-applicant seeks bail in FIR No. 0156 of 2025 under Section 115(2), 109 (1), 3(5) of BNS, Police Station Nasirabad, District Raebareli. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that as per FIR, all the accused persons namely Nilay Singh Chauhan, Harshit Singh, Adi Singh, Vishal Singh Kanujiya and Aman Lala (applicant) opened fire upon the informant and assaulted him with lathi-danda. Thus, against all the accused general allegations have been levelled in the FIR. The alleged incident was recorded in the CCTV footage and thereafter based upon the same, the informant/complainant and alleged eye witness namely Rajendra Singh made their statement(s) before the Investigating Officer (in short "IO"), which are annexed as Annexure Nos. 3 and 4 of this application, and a perusal of the same indicates that accused person opened fire upon the informant namely Surya Pratap Singh, however, he has not sustained firearm injury and injury which he sustained could be caused by hard and blunt object, which could be on account of falling down on hard and blunt object, as the CCTV footage does not support the case of the prosecution in regard to injury sustained by hard and blunt object. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no role of firing has been attributed to the applicant, and there appears to be no firearm injury sustained by the injured. The co-accused Aman Kumar Sinha @ Aman Lala and Nilay Singh Chauhan have already been granted bail by this court vide order dated 10.10.2025 and 26.11.2025 passed in Cri. Misc. Bail Application Nos.9729 of 2025 and 11587 of 2025, respectively. It is further submitted that no certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act has been obtained to verify the alleged CCTV footage, which, therefore, cannot be relied upon by the prosecution. The applicant has also explained criminal history of eight cases in para-14 of the bail application. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 04.11.2025. Investigation into the matter is ongoing, and the applicant undertakes to fully cooperate with the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sachin Verma, Praveen Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A. Vishal Singh Kanaujiya @ Vishal Kanaujiya .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) investigation. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the facts mentioned above. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record. On due consideration of the facts that the co-accused has already been granted bail, the injury sustained by the injured is not on a vital part of the body, there is no specific allegation against the applicant, applicant has explained criminal history of eight cases in para-14 of the bail application, the applicant has been in jail since 04.11.2025, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Vishal Singh Kanaujiya @ Vishal Kanaujiya be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions: (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 under Section 229-A of the IPC (now Section 269 BNS). (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 of the IPC (now Section 209 BNS). 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. BAIL No. 11854 of 2025 2 December 2, 2025 Renu/- BAIL No. 11854 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench