HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15738 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava and Sri Sanjay Kumar Dubey, learned counsels for the applicant and Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 73 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 3(5), 109 of BNS, Police Station - Kotwali Hathras, District - Hathras, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant along with four other co-accused persons is stated to have fired indiscriminately at informant's brother, thereby causing gun shot injury on his face on 28.02.2025 at about 09:30 PM. 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 about four hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has stated that the injured person has sustained one gun shot injury on his face but it cannot be ascertained as to who is the author of the said gun shot injury. The statement of injured person has been recorded whereby two persons including the applicant have been nominated for causing the said gun shot injury. It is argued that the said statement is itself Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Satyawati Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Monishkant Sharma .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) contradictory as there is only one gun shot injury sustained by the injured person but the role of firing has been assigned to two persons including the applicant. 7. Learned counsel has next contended that the criminal history of eight cases has been explained in the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is languishing in jail since 09.03.2025. 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 AGA 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 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, nature of offence, severity of punishment and also considering the discrepancy in the statement of the injured person whereby two persons have been nominated for causing a single gun shot injury, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant- Monishkant Sharma, 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 tfhe 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 BAIL No. 15738 of 2025 2 opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. September 15, 2025 Siddhant BAIL No. 15738 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad