HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8120 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Kumar, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 218 of 2024, under Sections 109 & 351(3) of BNS, Police Station - Jaswant Nagar, District - Etawah, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have caused gun shot injury to informant's mother on 09.10.2024 at about 11:00 AM. Subsequently, the applicant is stated to have taken fawda in his hand and chased the informant to kill him. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by more than six hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that the story cannot be believed as on one hand, the applicant had fired by country made pistol and on the other hand, he is stated to have carried fawda in his hand. Criminal history of five cases assigned to the applicant has been explained in the affidavit. 7. Learned counsel has next contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.01.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 8. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. 9. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mayank Yadav, Mukesh Kumar, Saransh Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Subodh Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 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. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, delay in lodging the FIR and also taking into consideration the statements of the informant and the injured person regarding the applicant having carried country made pistol at one hand and fawda on the other hand, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant- Subodh Kumar, 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. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 13. 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. 8120 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad