Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90176 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17297 of 2025 Applicant :- Lavi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 305 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 3(5), 111(2) of BNS, Police Station - Baniyather, District - Sambhal, during the pendency of trial. 4. The FIR was instituted by the informant stating that some unknown persons had asked his brother to open the shop for purchasing certain motorparts from him and subsequently shot him and ran away from the place of occurrence on 03.12.2024 at about 08:30 AM. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely 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 applicant is not named in the FIR. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that it is true that the applicant is known to the informant but he did not name him in the FIR itself and subsequently in the statement of the informant recorded by the I.O. the same day, his name has come up. The statement of the informant and other eye-witnesses indicate that they had seen the applicant and two other unknown persons running away from the place of occurrence after hearing the gunshots. The said evidence is admissible in light of Section 4 of B.S.A. only but the applicant was not named in the FIR, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication as his name has come up as an afterthought. 7. Learned counsel has next stated that the prosecution has subsequently raked up the motive to the applicant to commit the said offence. It is argued that on one hand, the motive to commit the said offence may be caused but on the other hand, it may also be the reason for false implication. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 12.12.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant in collusion with other co-accused persons had got the said offence committed and had seen by the informant and other eye-witnesses in the locality, as such, he is not entitled for bail. However, learned State Law Officer could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the informant did not nominate the applicant in the FIR and his name has come up subsequently in the statement of the informant the same day, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant- Lavi, 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. Order Date:- 27.5.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad