HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33489 of 2025 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant / complainant. By means of this second bail application, applicant Benami, who is involved in Case Crime No. 162 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 109, 131, 351(2), 352 BNS, police station Chhata, district Mathura, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. Vide order dated 13.08.2025 of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23556 of 2025, the first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn. As per prosecution case, in brief, complainant Kunwar Sen, who is uncle of the injured Ravi, got an F.I.R. lodged on 30.03.2025 against Chandan, Sanjay, Benami and two unknown persons making allegation inter alia that on 30.03.2025 at about 09:00 A.M., accused persons on account of prior enmity made fire-shot at his brother Ravi whereby he got seriously injured. Main substratum of arguments of learned counsel for the applicant is that in the F.I.R., general role of firing has been assigned to all the accused persons whereas when statement of injured Ravi was recorded, he has assigned the role of causing fire-arm injury to co- Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jyoti Agrawal, Nitin Kumar Agrawal, Rajeev Kumar Srivastava, Saagar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Punya Sheel Pandey Benami .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) accused Chandan and Sanjay only. Role of making fire-shot at him has not been attributed to the applicant. It is also pointed out that apart from the present case, the applicant has criminal history of two cases being (i) Case Crime No. 195 of 2020, under Sections 147, 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Chhata, District Mathura, in which he is on bail and (ii) Case Crime No. 473 of 2018, under Sections 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)घ, 3(1)द SC/ST Act, Police Station Chhata, District Mathura, in which after culmination of investigation, he has not been charge-sheeted. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of the applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.04.2025 and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant but do not dispute the above factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that injured Ravi did not attribute the role of firing or causing fire-arm injury to the applicant Benami, hence case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Chandan and Sanjay. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. Let the applicant Benami be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- BAIL No. 33489 of 2025 2 (i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned. In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail. It is made clear that benefit/parity of this order shall not be extended to co-accused Chandan and Sanjay. October 6, 2025 Shubham BAIL No. 33489 of 2025 3 (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad