HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22639 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Kumari Poonam Rajpoot, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 97 of 2025, under Sections 126(2), 109(1), 352, 3(5) B.N.S. and Sections 3/25 of Arms Act, Police Station - New Agra, District - Agra, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant and co-accused person are said to have assaulted and fired at the informant's husband, causing gun-shot injuries to him on 23.04.2025 at about 11 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. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by more than three hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The injury is not on vital part of the body i.e. left thigh of the injured, as such, it is not dangerous to life. Criminal history of three cases assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.04.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, Ujjawal Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dharam Singh, G.A., Kumari Poonam Rajpoot, Prem Babu Verma Ajay Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is the main accused person. He is the person, who has fired at the injured person, causing gun-shot injury to his left leg, and could have likely to dangerous to him, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 7. 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. 8. 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 gun-shot injury is not on vital party of the body, 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. 9. Let the applicant- Ajay Yadav, 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. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 11. 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 sailesh BAIL No. 22639 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAILESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad