HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7496 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Himanshu Goswami and Sri Pawan Giri, learned counsels for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 360 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 352, 351(2), 109(1), 115(2) of BNS, Police Station - Cholapur, District - Varanasi, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the case of the applicant is at par with the co-accused Sunil Rajbhar, who has been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 27.01.2025 passed in C.M.B.A. No. 653 of 2025, but the only disparity is that the applicant has been assigned the role of having caused the gun shot injury to the injured person.The said injury is not on vital part of the body as it is stated to have hit his leg. 5. Learned counsel has further argued that the said injury is self-inflicted just to falsely implicate the applicant. The applicant has no motive to commit the said offence. The motive, if any, is carried to co-accused Sujeet Rajbhar, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. 6. Learned counsel has next contended that the criminal history of six cases assigned to the applicant has been explained in the affidavit. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.11.2024. In case, the applicant is released on Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Himanshu Goswami, Pawan Giri Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Kundan Yadav Alias Amarjeet Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 7. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. 8. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that the injury is not on vital part of the body of the injured person, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant- Kundan Yadav Alias Amarjeet Yadav, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 12. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. September 16, 2025 Siddhant BAIL No. 7496 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad