HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30831 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Ashwini Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Raghav Arora, Advocate holding brief of Sri Birendra Kumar, 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. 85 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of BNS, Police Station - Bhawanpur, District - Meerut, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the co-accused person Deepu and one unknown person of having talks with the informant's son Manish over an altercation which ensued between them two months before the incident. On the fateful night of the incident i.e. on 23.03.2025 at about 09:30 PM, the applicant came driving a motorcycle whereby the co-accused Harsh was sitting as a pillion rider, who shot at the informant's son, causing his death. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. He has not been assigned the role of firing at the deceased person, as such, he is entitled for bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashwini Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Birendra Kumar, G.A. Shivam .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Learned counsel has further contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.03.2025, having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the offence was the pre-meditated and concerted effort of the applicant and the co- accused person as the applicant had come to the house of the deceased person on a motorcycle and the co-accused person, who was seated as a pillion rider, shot the deceased person, causing his instantaneous death, as such, he is not entitled for bail. The applicant carried common intention to commit the offence. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the circumstances of the case as the applicant was the person, who was driving the motorcycle and the deceased person was shot by the co-accused Harsh, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements 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. 11. 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. October 8, 2025 Siddhant BAIL No. 30831 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad