HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19332 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.149 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 333, 109(1), 3(5) B.N.S., 2023 and 3/25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station Malavan, District Etah, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith co-accused person Bahadur is stated to have fired at the son of the informant causing gunshot injury to the bottom of his back, thereby caused grievous injury to him. The injured person is also stated to have been beaten by a danda on 20.09.2024 at about 4:00 a.m. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is cross version to the instant case as N.C.R. No.93 of 2024 was instituted the same morning at 4:49 a.m. at the police station and the brother and father of the informant were injured in the said incident. At this point of time, it cannot be ascertained as to which party was the aggressor one. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that there is no previous criminal history of the applicant except a case instituted by the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jitendra Singh, Pramod Kumar, Sunil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Abhay .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) same informant against the applicant subsequent to the instant case, in which he has been enlarged on bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.01.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 8. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that there is cross version to the instant case, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant- Abhay, 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 shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall 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 25, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 19332 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad