HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28476 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Rama Shanker Mishra, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Abhishek Trivedi, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Durgvijay Singh, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.214 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 109(1), 352, 351(3), 3(5) B.N.S. and Section 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station- Sadar Bazar, District- Shahjahanpur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. As per prosecution story, at the exhortation of co-accused persons Ankit and Aman, the applicant is stated to have caused gunshot injury to the brother of the informant on 16.4.2025 at about 10:00 p.m. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by more than four hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The injury sustained by the injured person was found to be simple in nature as is but evident from the supplementary report dated 10.6.2025 filed as Annnexure-4 to the affidavit. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 18.4.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rama Shanker Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Abhishek Trivedi, G.A. Rahul Gupta .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Advocate General have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that it is open and shut case and the applicant is the sole person who had assaulted the injured person with gunshot, thereby grievous injury was sustained by him on vital organ i.e. abdomen. As such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the FIR being prompt and even the statement of injured person corroborates the FIR, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 8. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected . 9. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. 10. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. September 10, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 28476 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad