HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32494 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Saroj Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 113 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 109(1), 351(2), 61(2) B.N.S. and 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station- Soraon, District- Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith seven other unknown persons is stated to have fired at the brother of the informant on 3.5.2025 at about 12:00 Noon. 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 allegations are per se false. The FIR is delayed by about eight hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The FIR was instituted on the basis of suspicion only and the applicant has not been assigned the role of having caused gunshot injury to the injured person. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the statement of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pramod Kumar Singh, Rakesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Anil Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) injured person was recorded U/s 180 BNSS, whereby he has allayed suspicion against the applicant only. He has not stated that applicant had fired at him, but subsequently in his supplementary statement recorded U/s 180 BNSS he has stated that applicant alongwith other co-accused persons had fired at him. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that there are about 14 accused persons and they all are stated to have fired at the injured person. There are three gunshot injuries sustained by him, as such, it cannot be ascertained as to who had caused the said gunshot injuries. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 8.5.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is CCTV footage not of the place of occurrence but of the places before the incident and after the incident, whereby applicant is visible in them, as such, he was very much one of the assailants who had caused the said gunshot injuries to the injured person, who is an Advocate. 9. Learned counsel for the informant has further stated that there are several videos of the eye-witnesses who have stated that it was the applicant who had shot the injured person. Even the gunshot injuries are on vital parts of the body which could have proved fatal to the life, but the injured person somehow survived. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that name of applicant has come up on the basis of suspicion only and in the supplementary statement of the injured person the applicant is assigned the role of having caused the said gunshot injury, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima facie, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant- Anil Yadav, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties BAIL No. 32494 of 2025 2 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 evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 13. 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 22, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 32494 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad