HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31210 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Pawan Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mukesh Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 211 of 2025, under Sections 3(5), 115(2), 109 of BNS, Police Station Friends Colony, District Etawah, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant along with two other co-accused persons Vishal and Monu is stated to have attempted to fire upon the victim/informant. Even, subsequently, informant (injured) was hit by the butt of country made pistol on his head causing grievous injuries to him on 31.07.2025 at about 8 p.m. 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 five hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has next stated that statement of the injured was recorded subsequently and he has assigned the role of having tried to strangulate him to the applicant and the role of assaulting with the butt of country made pistol has been assigned to the co-accused Vishal Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pawan Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Shivam @ Shivam Kushwaha .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Kushwaha. The role of exhortation has been assigned to co-accused Monu. 7. Learned counsel has next stated that the FIR does not mention the said distinction of accused persons. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons in the FIR and subsequently, allegations have been changed in the statement of the injured person. 8. Learned counsel has further argued that there is no injury to corroborate the allegations made against the applicant as there is no sign of strangulation on the injured person. However, multiple lacerated wounds have been observed on cranium but role of causing the said injury has been assigned to co-accused Vishal Kushwaha. 9. Learned counsel has further submitted that there there is criminal history of 12 cases assigned to the applicant, out of which seven cases have been instituted by the family members of the same informant herein and applicant has been enlarged on bail in all those cases. 10. The applicant is languishing in jail since 03.08.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 11. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the injured person is an Advocate and he has been assaulted by the applicant and other co-accused persons and the injuries are grievous in nature and there is an abrasion on the neck of the injured person but he is not disputing the fact that the said injury on the neck and other part of the body are simple in nature. 12. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record and taking BAIL No. 31210 of 2025 2 into consideration the fact that the applicant has been assigned the role of trying to strangulate the injured person, prima facie, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 14. Let the applicant- Shivam @ Shivam Kushwaha, 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. 15. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 16. 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. 31210 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad