Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:101648 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9092 of 2025 Applicant :- Raman Bihari Alias Sonu Alias Lamboo Rawat Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anshu Singh,Hemendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amit Kumar Mishra,G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant / complainant. By means of this application under Section 483 BNSS, applicant Raman Bihari Alias Sonu Alias Lamboo Rawat, who is involved in Case Crime No. 301 of 2024, under Section 109 BNS and Section 3/25/27 Arms Act, police station Refinery, district Mathura seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. As per prosecution case, in brief, complainant lodged a first information report against the applicant on 28.11.2024 under Section 109 BNS alleging inter alia that applicant had borrowed Rs. 95,000/- from his son, which was due upon the applicant. On 28.11.2024 at about 05 P.M., the applicant called his son and took him away saying to settle account. The applicant brought him to VTC ground and shot him. On hearing the sound of bullet, Sonu and P.K. reached at the spot, who saw the incident and admitted him in the hospital. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and no money was ever due upon the applicant. Incident took place on 28.11.2024 at about 05:00 PM whereas F.I.R. was lodged on the same day at about 10.07 PM whereas police station is situated at a distance of 5 kms., as such, there is delay of 05 hours in lodging the F.I.R. The injured has not sustained any grievous injury and he has been admitted in a private hospital whereas the government hospital is situated near the place of incident. The injured was discharged from Mathura Neuro Super Specitality Hospital on 04.12.2024. Apart from the present case, the applicant is also having criminal history of one other case being Case Crime No. 297 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, police station Refinery, district Mathura, in which he is already on bail. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 30.11.2024 and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of injured, there is direct allegation of firing gun shot at injured, which is corroborated from the injury report. Motive has also been assigned to the applicant. Hence, bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that the statement of the injured was recorded by the Investigating Officer, in which he has supported the prosecution case making specific allegation against the applicant that he shot him. The prosecution case is corroborated from the medical report of injured Lakhan Sharma, wherein gun shot wound on lower chest and abdomen, which is vital part of body of the injured, was found. Eye witnesses, namely, Sonu alias Deo Srivastava and Prabhat Kumar Pal alias P.K. have also supported the F.I.R. version. Police has also recovered country-made pistol of 315 bore alongwith fired cartridge from the possession of the applicant at the time of his arrest. Hence, I do not find any good ground to disbelieve the statement of the injured and eye-witnesses at this stage. The applicant is the only accused in this case, hence his false implication also cannot be presumed. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant, nature of injury and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 Shubham Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad