HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32801 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Kashi Naresh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri G.K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 228 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 351(2) of BNS and Sections 3/25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station - Arniya, District - Bulandshahar, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that it is a clear cut case of false implication as the applicant is stated to have fired at the injured but the injured has not sustained any firearm injury. The FIR is delayed by about 20 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The injuries sustained by the victim are simple in nature. 5. Learned counsel has also stated that the statement of the injured was recorded whereby he has stated that he has sustained injuries after being entangled with the wire and having been hit by the pole erected on the fence of the sugarcane field. 6. Learned counsel has further stated that criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant stands explained as one FIR has been instituted by the applicant's wife and in another case, closure report has been filed and the matter has been settled between the applicant and his in-laws. The applicant is languishing in jail since 05.08.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kashi Naresh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Radhakrishna Alias Rahul .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 7. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. 8. 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. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, severity of punishment and also considering the delay in lodging the FIR and there being no firearm injury sustained by the injured, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant- Radhakrishna Alias Rahul, 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 12. 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 23, 2025 Siddhant BAIL No. 32801 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad