HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28153 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Brajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Daya Shanker Pandey and Sri Shahrukh, learned counsels for the first informant and Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Rama Nand Mishra, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 145 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1) B.N.S. and under Sections 27/30 Arms Act, Police Station Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad. 4. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 02.03.2025 by Abid naming the applicant, Ahsan, Sartaj, Mofid, Nisha Kinnar and 10-15 unknown persons alleging therein that he plays dholak with Pooja Kinnar in Modinagar area. On 01.03.2025 at about 11 pm his son Albaksh had gone for collecting money in the area of Pooja Kinnar along with his associates. When he reached Maruti Nexa showroom the accused persons lying in wait in their vehicles attacked them with lathi, danda and sharp weapons. His son received injuries. Ahsan fired from his country-made pistol. Sartaj assaulted with a sword due to which his son received injury on his neck and blood was coming due to which he died on the spot. The accused Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Brajesh Kumar Singh, Rohit Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s): Daya Shanker Pandey, G.A., Kushagra Srivastava, Shahrukh Rama Nand Mishra .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) persons then left him and ran away. His report be lodged and action be taken. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that in the first information report no specific role has been assigned to the applicant. It is submitted that subsequently during investigation Sadim and Rashid were made eye-witnesses who have assigned the role of firing on the deceased by a licensed weapon by the applicant. It is submitted that subsequently the applicant was arrested and the police has shown recovery of a licensed gun from his possession. It is submitted that the same is a planted recovery and an afterthought. After the postmortem examination cartridges and small pellets were found from the body of the deceased. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 22 and is in jail since 07.03.2025. 6. Per contra, learned counsels for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the first informant submits that in the present matter Sadim and Rashid are the alleged eye-witnesses who have assigned the main role of shooting on the deceased by the applicant with his weapon. The said weapon was recovered. Learned counsel has placed before the Court the order dated 18.09.2025 of co- accused Ahsan passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31117 of 2025 (Ahsan Vs. State of U.P.) and has submitted that the said Court in paragraph 6 has specifically opined that the case of the said applicant is distinguishable with that of Ramanand Mishra as he has been assigned the main role of causing firearm injury to the deceased and further paragraph 10 of the said order specifically opined that benefit of parity shall not be extended to Ramanand Mishra, the copy of the said order has been produced before the Court which is taken on record. 7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the first information report. There are two eye-witnesses namely Sadim and Rashid who have assigned the specific role of firing by the applicant on the deceased with his weapon. The postmortem examination report BAIL No. 28153 of 2025 2 shows 08 injuries on the body of the deceased and there were recoveries of cartridges, small pellets and metallic object from the injuries and the cause of death was opined as shock and haemorrhage due to antemortem injuries from projectile fire arm weapon. The weapon of assault has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant. No ground for bail is made out. 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. 9. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. October 6, 2025 AS Rathore BAIL No. 28153 of 2025 3 (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad