Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:119891 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24230 of 2025 Applicant :- Tajim Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P. 2. By means of this application, applicant-Tajim who is involved in Case Crime No. 98 of 2025, under Section 109 B.N.S., Police Station Rohta, District Meerut, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. 3. As per the prosecution case, in brief, complainant- Mohsin, who is one of the injured, got a first information report lodged on 04.06.2025 against present applicant-Tajim for the offence under Section 109 B.N.S. alleging inter-alia that on 04.06.2025 at about 9:10 P.M., he along with Vishal were returning from Ashfak's house on a bike, accused-Tajim fired shot with a country made pistol at him and his friend Vishal, due to which they sustained serious injuries. 4. Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The injury reports of the injured Mohsin and Vishal are spurious in nature and the same do not appear to be caused by firearm. It is next submitted that a country made pistol has been planted by the police in order to falsely implicate the applicant. There is no eye witness of the said incident. Much emphasis has been given by contending that both the injured have filed their affidavits before the concerned trial Court stating inter alia that some unknown person fired shot upon them. Apart from this case, applicant has criminal history of one case being Case Crime No. 99 of 2025, under Section 109(1) of BNS and Sections 3/5/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Rohta, District Meerut, in which he is on bail. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, the applicant who is languishing in jail since 05.06.2025, may be released on bail. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of the complainant (one of the injured) there is a specific allegation of firing at injured- Mohsin and Vishal against the applicant. The said allegation is corroborated from the injury reports of the injured. Hence bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that both the injured-Mohsin and Vishal in their statement under Section 180 B.N.S.S. have supported the prosecution case by stating inter-alia that when they were returning from Ashfak's place, on the way, applicant by saying that they both helped Zeeshan to entice away her daughter, fired shot upon them with a country made pistol with an intention to kill them and ran away from the spot. The alleged country made pistol, which was used in the commission of crime, has also been recovered from the possession of the applicant. The applicant is sole accused in this case. The injured Mohsin has received three injuries and injured Vishal has received four injuries. Hence, I do not find any good ground to disbelieve the statements of the injured at this stage. So far as submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that both the injured have given affidavit before the trial Court that when they were returning from Ashfaq's place on bike, some unknown persons fired bullet, the pellets of which hit them and due to darkness, they could not identify the shooters is concerned, the same is neither part of the case diary nor there is reference of such affidavit in the bail rejection order dated 26.06.2025 of the trial Court. The authenticity of said affidavit is a matter of trial, which can be adjudicated in the trial at the appropriate stage, hence the same cannot be considered by this Court at this stage. 7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant, nature of injury and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 9. It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 Kashifa Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad