HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9328 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Amit Chaudhary, the learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the records. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 269/2024, under Sections 191(2),191(3), 190, 103(1),61(2), 3(5) B.N.S. & 3/25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station Baldi Rai, District Sultanpur. 3. The present case was registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 09.10.2024 against five named persons, excluding the applicant. It was alleged therein that while the informant’s cousin, aged about 30 years, was proceeding to attend the call of nature at about 4:30 a.m., the accused persons fired at him with a country-made pistol and thereafter fled from there on motorcycles. Some women rushed towards the village, shouting that the deceased had been shot. When the informant and other villagers reached the spot, they found his cousin lying dead in a pool of blood. 4. The post-mortem examination report records two gunshot entry wounds and one exit wound. The cause of death has been opined to be hemorrhage and shock resulting from ante-mortem firearm injuries. 5. In his statement recorded under Section 180 of the B.N.S.S., the informant reiterated the version stated in the F.I.R. However, in his subsequent statement, he alleged that the applicant and two other persons were riding Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Chaudhary, Utkarsh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ankit Yadav .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) the motorcycle, and that the person sitting on the pillion seat fired the shot at the deceased, requesting that their names be added. He further stated that he had mentioned the applicant’s name in a media interview. However, the informant did not specify the source of his knowledge regarding the applicant’s alleged involvement in the shooting. 6. It is further submitted that the applicant has duly explained his criminal antecedents in the bail application. No recovery has been effected from him. Co-accused persons, namely Arjun Yadav and Atul Yadav, have already been granted bail by coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 04.02.2025 and 28.02.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 35 of 2025 and 1653 of 2025, respectively. Similarly, other co-accused, namely Shubham Yadav, Aniket Tiwari @ Monu Pandit, and Lucky Yadav, have also been granted bail by coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 14.05.2025 and 20.03.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 3784 of 2025 and 2224 of 2025. The applicant, therefore, seeks parity with co-accused Shubham Yadav. 7. Learned A.G.A.-I has opposed the prayer for bail, submitting that a pistol was recovered from an open place amidst bushes on the pointing out of co- accused Aniket Tiwari and Shubham Yadav. It is further submitted that the allegations against the applicant have been substantiated during investigation, and a charge sheet has already been filed on 06.01.2025. 8. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the applicant was neither named in the F.I.R. nor in the statement of the informant recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. Name of the applicant has surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused Shubham Yadav, who has been granted bail, wherein it has merely been alleged that Shubham Yadav persuaded the applicant to participate in the offence and at the later stage, the applicant had provided a motorcycle to them and once accompanied the co-accused persons to commit the murder. Such allegations, however, do not find corroboration from the prosecution evidence. The alleged recovery of a pistol on the pointing out of co-accused Shubham Yadav and Aniket Tiwari was made from an open place amidst bushes, without the presence of any independent witness. Moreover, other co-accused persons have already been granted bail. Considering these BAIL No. 9328 of 2025 2 aspects, coupled with the fact that the applicant is in custody since 31.03.2025 and the investigation now stands concluded, this Court finds it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime. 9. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed. 10. Let the applicant Ankit Yadav be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court. October 6, 2025 R.C. BAIL No. 9328 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench