Mayank Kumar Jain, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

2. The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in S.T. No. 09 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 543 of 2022, under Sections 34, 302, 504 I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Shahpur, District Gorakhpur, with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The witnesses of the incident are near and dear of the informant. The informant is not the eye witness of the occurrence. It is further submitted that the main role of causing firearm injury to the deceased (Vikas Tiwari) has been attributed to Lucki Nishad. The role assigned to the applicant is of exhortation. The eye witnesses in their statements have corroborated the fact that the applicant has not caused injury to the deceased (Vikas Tiwari). It is further submitted that no motive has been assigned to the applicant for causing firearm injury to the deceased. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph nos. 16, 17 and 18 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. Learned counsel for applicant lastly submits that applicant is in jail since 08.10.2022 and that in case applicant is enlarged on bail, applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.

4. Learned A.G.A. assisted by learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the deceased had sustained as many as three firearm injuries and he succumbed to his injuries. The applicant has already been convicted in a case under Section 307 of IPC and section 25 Arms Act, and against which Criminal Appeal No. 6638 of 2007 is pending before this Court. He further submitted that another criminal history of the applicant is of Section 302 IPC.

5. In view of judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P. and another (2015) 3 SCC 527, criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be ignored while deciding bail application, discretionary powers of Courts to grant bail must be exercised in a judicious manner in case of a habitual offender.

6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for applicant as well as learned A.G.A. assisted by learned counsel for the informant and keeping in view the fact that the applicant has already been convicted under Section 307 IPC, hence I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant, Pankaj Tripathi, is hereby rejected.