HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25214 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 Umesh Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mahendra Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 82 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109, 352, 117(2) of BNS and Section 3/25(1-B)(a)A Act, Police Station Kunwargaon, District Budaun, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have fired at the injured person causing grievous gun shot injury to him on 12.05.2025 at about 6 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. 6. Learned counsel has next stated that the FIR is delayed by 11 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is a cross-version to the instant case as one person from the side of the applicant has also sustained gun shot injury. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jay Prakash Pandey, Umesh Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mahendra Singh Rahgir .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has next stated that although, it is true that the applicant has been assigned the role of causing gun shot injury to the injured person but there being cross-version, it cannot be ascertained as to which party is aggressor one. The said FIR No.83 of 2025 has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit filed with the bail application. 8. The criminal history assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15.06.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is the main accused person who has caused gun shot injury to the injured person, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail. 10. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record and taking into consideration the fact that the victim is a consenting party, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant- Rahgir, 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 the 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. BAIL No. 25214 of 2025 2 13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 14. 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 12, 2025 Sumit S BAIL No. 25214 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad