Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:131728 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26707 of 2025 Applicant :- Aman Ansari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sachin Sharma,Shivank Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State. 2. By means of this bail application, applicant- Aman Ansari, who is involved in Case Crime No. 19 of 2025, under Sections 191(3), 118(1), 352, 190(1), 117(2), 3(5) BNS, 2023 and Section 3/25 Arms Act, police station Kotwali, district Prayagraj, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. 3. As per prosecution case, in brief, complainant who is injured also got a First Information Report lodged on 16.04.2025 against Aman Ansari (applicant), Dilawar, Mohd. Shabi, Mohd. Zishan and unknown persons alleging inter-alia that on 15.04.2025 at about 10:30 AM he came out of house to buy Gutakha, he saw that some people fighting among themselves and pelting bricks on each other. On one side above named accused persons and on other side Mohd. Savi and Mohd. Nishan, etc were abusing each other and creating ruckus, meanwhile Aman Ansari took out his pistol and fired, due to which he got seriously injured as pellets hit his leg. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that injured received injury on his leg which is non vital part of body. The injury is simple in nature. There was no intention to kill the injured. Since he was passing from there, therefore he received injury. The applicant does not have any criminal antecedent. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of the applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.04.2025 and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that incident took place in a very densely populated area and applicant has been attributed the role of fire shot, by which complainant received injury. In case, the applicant is released on bail there is every possibility of tampering the evidence and witnesses, hence the 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 :- i-The F.I.R. was lodged by the injured himself. ii-Injured has received fire arm injury. As per supplementary report, there was bleeding and crepitation in left leg, foot and right knee region. Radiological examination revealed fracture of left 4th metatarsal with foreign body in situ left leg and right knee. iii. The injured was operated and foreign body (iron pillets) were removed on 18.4.2025. iv-The applicant has been attributed the role of fire shot, which is corroborated from the injury report of injured. 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, the manner in which crime has been committed in day light in densely populated area 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. 10. However, it is open to the applicant to move second bail application after recording the statement of injured before the trial Court. 11. Copy of this order be sent to complainant for information. Order Date :- 5.8.2025 Sanjeet Digitally signed by :- SANJEET KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad