HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23349 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant does not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed today by learned A.G.A. 4. Heard Sri Kaushlendra Nath Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Arun Bhanu Shukla, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Paritosh Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Sri Avesh Mishra, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 5. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.190 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 34 IPC, Police Station Afzalgarh, District Bijnor with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 6. As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith five other named accused persons and one unknown person is stated to have fired at the uncle of the informant, whereby there is particular allegations that the applicant fired and hit the uncle of the informant in his cranium with a CMP, causing his death on 06.06.2024 at about 9:12 a.m. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by about two and half hours and there is no explanation of the said delay Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arun Bhanu Shukla, Shubhangini Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Avesh Mishra, G.A. Akhlaque .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) caused. After the incident, the informant did not take care to make a call to the police or inform the police about the said serious incident for two and half long hours. The said fact falsifies the prosecution story. The applicant has been implicated out of animosity as there is FIR No.351 of 2019, in which the applicant was an eye-witness and the informant was an accused in the said case. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the informant earlier on also tried to falsely implicate the applicant in FIR No.53 of 2022, in which the applicant was exonerated by the police. The said closure report dated 08.03.2022 has been annexed at page no.198 of the affidavit accompanying the bail application. Even the statement of the informant falsifies the prosecution story. The FIR indicates that the accused persons came on motorcycles, but the statement of the informant recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. categorically indicates that the accused persons laid an ambush and came out of sugarcane field and they were not travelling on motorcycles. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that the investigating officer did not find a single bullet or pellet from the place of occurrence as it is stated that all the accused persons fired indiscriminately at the deceased person. Only one gunshot wound has been observed on his cranium and the said bullet was found embedded on the neck of the deceased person. The applicant is in jail since 10.06.2024 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the applicant is named in the FIR and it is promptly instituted coupled with the fact that the post-mortem report corroborates the prosecution story, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 12. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as BAIL No. 23349 of 2025 2 has been laid down in the recent judgments 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. October 10, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 23349 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad