HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8431 of 2024 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State, Shri Neeraj Kumar Baghel, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. 2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.314 of 2023, under sections 302, 307, 504, 506, 120B, 34 IPC and Sections 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Aaspur Devsara, District Pratapgarh. 3. 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 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. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dev Mani Mishra, Mohd. Salman, Raj Kumar Singh, Sandeep Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Jay Krishna Shukla Digvijay Singh @ Bholu .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Learned A.G.A. for the State on the other hand while opposing the bail application argues that the applicant was identified and considering the gravity of the offence, the bail application may be rejected. 5. It is argued that the applicant has criminal history of as many as 12 cases which are serious in nature. 6. Post mortem report on record indicates two gunshot injuries on the chest which also is the cause of death. 7. Considering the long criminal history of the applicant as well as considering that fact witnesses have not been examined, 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. 8431 of 2024 2 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench