Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144307 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25339 of 2025 Applicant :- Sanjay Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Srivastava,Saagar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Punya Sheel Pandey Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant. By means of this application, applicant-Sanjay Singh, who is involved in Case Crime No. 162 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 109, 131, 351(2), 352 B.N.S. and Section 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Chhata, District Mathura, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that main accused in this case is Chandan whose fire shot hit at the back of injured, whereas fire shot made by applicant hit the hand of injured, which is a non-vital part of his body. The applicant has no criminal antecedent. Therefore, the applicant who is languishing in jail since 29.04.2025 may be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. Specific role of firing at injured Ravi has been assigned to present applicant-Sanjay as well as co-accused Chandan. Informant and injured in their statements recorded before investigating officer, have supported the prosecution case as mentioned in the F.I.R. Role of causing firearm injury has been assigned to co-accused Chandan as well as present applicant-Sanjay and one unknown person. Injured- Ravi, in his statement has stated inter alia that on 30.03.2025 at about 8.30 A.M. he along with his uncle Kunwar Sen (informant) went to fetch drinking water near Ajhai Railway Station and when they were coming back on their motorcycle, they were stopped by co-accused Chandan, applicant Sanjay and two others. Chandan pointed a gun at him, then he ran to save his life but Chandan fired a shot which hit his back. Thereafter applicant Sanjay fired a shot which passed through his hand. He has also stated that applicant and co-accused Chandan fired at him and his uncle with intention to kill them, due to which he got seriously injured. As per injury report dated 30.03.2025 of injured-Ravi, he has received three firearm injuries on his body. In the discharge summary dated 04.04.2025 of injured Ravi, it is mentioned inter alia that in view of low GCS, patient put on mechanical ventilatory support, bullet was found stuck in sixth and seventh rib of injured, and bullet removal surgery was done on 30.03.2025. It is further contended that weapon of crime has also been recovered from the possession of the applicant. Lastly it is submitted that considering the gravity of offence, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that informant and injured in their statements have supported the prosecution case making specific allegations of causing gun shot injuries to the injured against the present applicant-Sanjay and co-accused Chandan, which are corroborated from the injury report of the injured-Ravi. As per injury report of injured-Ravi he received following three injuries:- (i) Entry wound of bullet and tattooing at back region on approx [T8] vertebral level. (ii) Graze abrasion 5 cm x 3 cm and tattooing at left forearm (distal end) lateral aspect. (iii) CLW and burning and tattooing 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm at left hand (lateral aspect). The injured was put on mechanical ventilatory support. His condition was serious. Bullet removal surgery was also done on 30.03.2025. Firearm which was used in commission of crime has also been recovered from the possession of the applicant. Therefore, 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 injuries as noted above and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to disbelieve the statement of injured and release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. It is open for the applicant to move second bail application after recording of the statement of injured before the trial court. Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Kashifa Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad