HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23422 of 2025 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record. 2. This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused- applicant Indrajeet Singh seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.33 of 2025, under Sections 352, 109(1) B.N.S., Police Station- Kaimari, District- Rampur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to civil litigation. He submitted that a civil suit has been filed by the accused applicant in which injunction was granted in his favour by the competent civil court having jurisdiction in this regard. It is further submitted that the applicant has caused injury due to use of private defense. Attention of the Court has been drawn towards the site plan and submit that cartridges were shown and recovered from the residence of the applicant and the place of occurrence is not accurate as shown in the site plan. The place of occurrence shifts in this case. It is argued that the applicant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 7.4.2025. Hence bail has been prayed for. 4. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashok Kumar Rai, Girja Shanker Mishra, Pavan Kumar Pandey, Pratiksha Rai, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A., Rajesh Kumar Mishra Indrajeet Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) applicant and submits that accused applicant has committed a serious offence and he has been assigned the main role of causing firearm injury to the injured as per the FIR. The prosecution witnesses have stated that the applicant has caused firearm injury to the injured and the injured Riyazuddin himself has stated in his statement that the applicant has caused the firearm injury. It is further submitted that multiple firearm injuries have been caused to the injured in this case. The medical evidence/injury report corroborates the statement of injured. The firearm was recovered from the pointing out of accused Indrajeet Singh during the course of investigation. The nature of injuries are quoted below:- "(i) Facial CLW Over (L) side of face 1cm x 1cm, actively bleeding and appears like entry wound as margins are inverted. (ii) CLW (Possibly entry wound) over proximal aspect of sternum (iii) CLW over (L) side of chest near 8th rib. (iv) CLW over (L) hand thinar eminence measuring 7cm X 7cm with underlying muscles & bones axposed, gresily contaminated, actively bleeding unhealthy margins 1cm x 1cm possibly exit wound CLW over dorsum of (L) thumb X-ray (L) Hand - # P.P. of Thumbs3nd MC#. 1. Nature of Injuries: Grievous (Simple, Grievous, Dangerous of pending for observation) 2. Probable duration of injuries: Fresh 3. Kind of weapon used (Sharp, Blunt, Firearm/Fire, Position etc) CT Report of Thorax (Plain) Impression: Mild left pleural effusion with subsigmental collapse of left lower lobe. A well defined Hyperdensity noted involving, The body of sternum entending into the lung parenchyma on Right side involving anterior lobe suggestive of foreign Body. Few tiny modular opacities are noted involving right upper and lower lobes." 5. From the perusal of the medical report/injury report it transpires BAIL No. 23422 of 2025 2 that four firearm injuries were found on the body of the injured and some of them are on vital part of the body i.e. on chest and neck. 6. The right of private defense extends to protect body and property, however, the force used must commensurate with the threat; excessive or retaliatory force should not be used under umbrella of concept of 'private defense' in criminal law. It may be a matter of trial, and decided accordingly on the basis of evidence adduced by both the parties in this regard. 7. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and considering the submissions advanced, the nature of injury and gravity of the accusation, I find no good ground to grant bail to the applicant in the aforesaid case, at this stage. 8. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 9. However, trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case. September 10, 2025 RA BAIL No. 23422 of 2025 3 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad