HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21826 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant today is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 46 of 2025, under Sections 109, 352, 3(5) BNS and Section 3/25 of Arms Act, Police Station Gajraula, District J.P. Nagar (Amroha), during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, husband of the informant was going from his agricultural field on 28.01.2025 at about 4 p.m. along with his grand son whereby an altercation ensued between the parties over obstruction in the path by parking a tractor in it. 5. On being asked to move the said tractor from the path, applicant is stated to have hurled abuses at the injured person. The injured person asked him not to hurl abuses, as such at the exhortation of co-accused person, applicant is stated to have caused gun shot injury to him which even caused injury to his grand son on his lap. 6. 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 five and half hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Brijesh Kumar Pandey, Sandeep Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Pradeep Kumar Narendra Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 7. Learned counsel has further stated that the injuries sustained by the injured person are not on the vital part of the body, they are on the scapular region, while the injuries sustained by his grand son are simple in nature, as such the applicant is entitled for bail. 8. The applicant is languishing in jail since 01.02.2025. The applicant has no criminal history. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there are two injured persons in the instant case and one of the three injuries sustained by the husband of the informant is on his chest which is a vital organ and the injury was dangerous to his life. Even his minor grand son aged about three years has also sustained gun shot injuries on his body parts, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the injuries sustained by the two persons and the FIR being within reasonable time and also considering the fact that applicant being the main accused having caused the said injuries to two persons, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 11. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 12. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. 13. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. (Krishan Pahal,J.) September 22, 2025 Sumit S BAIL No. 21826 of 2025 2 Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad