ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal arises out of impugned order dated 01.08.2017 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25588 of 2017, wherein the High Court allowed the bail application preferred by the respondent no.1. 3. The FIR No.93/2017 dated 10.02.2017, was registered at the instance of the appellant-complainant under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR states that the respondent armed with a pistol was a part of the unlawful assembly, wherein, all the accused persons including the respondent attacked the four family members of the complainant. Thereafter, accused persons shot two boys aged 15 years and grievously hurt other family members of the complainant. 4. While, the Police arrested around eight accused on 11.02.2017, the respondent was finally arrested on 22.02.2017. The charge sheet came to be filed on 29.04.2017, under section 147,148,149,307,302,504, 506 and 326 of IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act. Thereafter, the accused Respondent preferred a bail application before the Sessions Court in Bail Application No. 1783/2017, which was rejected by the Sessions Court vide order dated 29.05.2017. Aggrieved by the above rejection, the Respondent approached the High Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25588/2017, wherein the bail was granted to the respondent. Hence, the complainant preferred the present appeal. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the F.I.R. was registered duly wherein it was alleged that two innocent young boys aged 15 years were brutally murdered. All the witnesses have consistently made their statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein they have narrated the entire incident. It was also submitted, that accused is involved in a number of criminal cases and that he is a gangster. According to the learned counsel, without considering these facts, the High Court has casually granted bail to accused. It is also stated by the learned counsel that there is every apprehension that if the accused is released on bail, he may try to influence the prosecution witnesses or otherwise tamper with the prosecution case. 6. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submitted that there was delay in filing the F.I.R. and that the accused was not present in the scene of crime. 6. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submitted that there was delay in filing the F.I.R. and that the accused was not present in the scene of crime. He further stated that the respondent has been falsely implicated in the present case due to existence of prior enmity between the parties. 7. The State has also filed counter affidavit, perusal of which reveals that the incident had taken place on 10-2-2017 at 5.45 pm and the F.I.R. was lodged without delay on the same day i.e. on 10-2-2017 at 8.30 p.m. It has also come to light that, the co-accused of the respondent no.1 is involved in various other criminal cases. Further, the Counsel has also stated that, the respondent and his co-accused have also been booked under the Goonda Act. Hence, he prayed for the cancellation of bail. 8. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. After the perusal of the materials placed before us, we are of the opinion that it was not appropriate on the part of High Court to casually grant bail to Respondent No.1 without looking into the nature of allegations made against him. The perusal of the FIR and the statement of the witnesses reveals a prima facie case against the respondent no.1 as his role is laid out descriptively. Further, the Respondent no.1 is alleged to be involved in multiple other offences. The High Court ought to have considered the gravity of offences alleged to have been committed by Respondent no.1 before giving him the benefit of bail. 9. Further, both counsels for the appellant and the State have argued that since the trial is in its initial stage, the release of the accused might lead to the tampering of the prosecutions case. Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions, particularly being aware of fact that the trial is still pending, we are not inclined to comment anything on merits. We set aside the order passed by the High Court granting bail to accused. However, we make it abundantly clear that, any observations made herein should not be considered by the trial court, and will accordingly not come into respondent's way on merit. 10. We set aside the order passed by the High Court granting bail to accused. However, we make it abundantly clear that, any observations made herein should not be considered by the trial court, and will accordingly not come into respondent's way on merit. 10. It is brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the parties that the accused is already in jail, in view of the interim order dated 5.09.2017, wherein it was directed that, the accused persons shall not be released on bail, if not already released. The appeal is allowed in the aforestated terms.