HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26210 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Karunesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Chandra Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 164 of 2025, under Section 109 B.N.S., Police Station- Khajani, District- Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, some unknown persons coming on Bolero car no. UP32 NU 8423 are stated to have fired and caused grievous injuries to the son of the informant Shubham Yadav and one Anil Chauhan on 8.5.2025 at about 08:30 p.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. The FIR is delayed by about fifteen hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant has been implicated in this case only on the ground that he is the owner of vehicle no.UP32 NU 8423. 6. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no test identification parade conducted as per Section 7 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. No motive has been assigned to the applicant in the statement of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Karunesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Chandra Prakash Misra, G.A. Arjun Chauhan .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) the injured persons. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant has been explained in paragraph-2 to the second supplementary affidavit dated 8.9.2025. The applicant is languishing in jail since 9.5.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application. 8. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case of bail is made out. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that applicant is not named in the FIR and there being no test identification parade, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant- Arjun Chauhan, 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 evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 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. (Krishan Pahal,J.) September 11, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 26210 of 2025 2 Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad