HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31353 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shamsher Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 54 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 351(3) of BNS and Section 3/25/27(1) of Arms Act, Police Station Hastinapur, District Meerut, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have entered into an altercation with the injured person thereby he has fired at him, causing injury to his neck on 02.03.2025 at about 10:20 p.m. The co-accused person is also stated to have fired at the injured person causing injury to his leg. 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 three hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has also brought to light several anomalies in the medical examination report of the injured. Initially, injured person was referred for treatment at C.H.C. but he was taken to Nagar Hospital, Meerut whereby the medical examination was conducted and two grievous injuries were observed, one was on the cervical region and Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mayank Yadav, Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Harman Alias Harmanjeet .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) another on the posterior lateral aspect of leg. 7. Learned counsel has further argued that the anomaly is evident from the X-ray report as the first X-ray report of the injured person was prepared on 03.03.2025 which indicates that no significant abnormality was seen in the chest region, in thigh and in cervical area of spine. 8. Learned counsel has next stated that subsequently in collusion with the radiologist, another X-ray was conducted of the injured person on 26.03.2025 which shows presence of a radio-opaque shadow in the lateral aspect of thigh near knee. The said anomaly speaks volume of interpolation and collusion of the injured person/informant with the doctors. It is an endeavour of the informant and the injured person to keep the applicant incarcerated, as such the applicant is entitled for bail. 9. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.04.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 10. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the said anomaly, if any, is regarding the injuries sustained on the thigh and the said bullet might have traveled to knee area, as such missed by the radiologist at the time of first X-ray which was conducted on 03.03.2025 but subsequently, as the injured person felt pain in his leg, same was retrieved from the knee area of the injured person. 11. Learned counsel for the informant has next stated that the role of the applicant is of having fired at the injured person in his cervical region i.e. neck and there is no anomaly in the said injury regarding neck area, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record and taking into consideration over all anomalies in the injuries sustained by the injured person, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. BAIL No. 31353 of 2025 2 13. Let the applicant- Harman @ Harmanjeet, 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 the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 15. 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 12, 2025 Sumit S BAIL No. 31353 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad