HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28298 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Meva Lal Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.234 of 2025, under Sections 109(1) B.N.S. and 27/30 Arms Act, Police Station- Kant, District- Shahjahanpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant, who is a retired army personnel, is stated to have fired at his uncle Sishupal on 9.5.2025 at about 04:00 p.m. from his licensed revolver causing gunshot injury to him. 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 injury has been caused on the back of the injured person, as such, it is an accidental injury. The FIR is delayed by about twenty two hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the injury sustained by the injured person was not grievous in nature as he was discharged from hospital on 18.5.2025, as such, the parameters as provided U/s 116 BNS do not stand fulfilled. The injury cannot be termed to be grievous in nature. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Meva Lal Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Gajendra @ Fauji .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.5.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that applicant held a licensed revolver and he has used it and caused injury deliberately as his children are living in the house of the injured person. The motive itself stands established. 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 delay of twenty two hours in institution of FIR and the situs of the injury sustained by the injured person, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima facie, 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- Gajendra @ Fauji, 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. 12. 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 16, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 28298 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad