JUDGMENT : Shree Prakash Singh, J. 1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 143 of 2024, under sections 302, 396, 149, 406 & 506 of the I.P.C., Police Station-Kurebhar, District-Sultanpur. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He added that because of some monetary dispute in between the deceased and the co- accused persons, namely, Priyanshu Dubey & Shadab Beg,Priyanshu Dubey opened fire over the deceased, as result whereof,he died. He next added that the allegation in the first information report, is evident that the role assigned to the present applicant is of catching hold as well as exhortation and the main role is assigned to Priyanshu Dubey and thus, the role of the present applicant is distinguishable from the role of the main accused namely, Priyanshu Dubey. He submits that the evidences, which are collected by the Investigating OfÏcer, are also in the same dimension and there is no evidence that the role of the applicant as well as the main accused is equivalent. 4. Adding his arguments, he submits that the injury report is also evident that there is one gunshot injury and that is attributed to the main accused, Priyanshu Dubey and therefore, in all senses, this is a case where, the role of the present applicant is altogether different. He added that the applicant has explained three cases criminal history in paragraph no. 32 of the bail application and that too, are the petty matters and added that applicant cooperated in the investigation proceedings and the chargesheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper the evidences or would threaten the witnesses. Further submission is that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 26-06-2024 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. 5. Further submission is that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 26-06-2024 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. 5. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is named in the first information report and he has been assigned the role of catching hold and subsequently, he also exhorted the main accused,Priyanshu Dubey for opening the fire. He next submits that the applicant has three cases criminal history and as such, he is not entitled for any relief. 6. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires from the narration in the first information report that the role of the applicant is altogether different as the main role is assigned to the accused namely, Priyanshu Dubey for opening the fire over the deceased and there is one gunshot injury as is apparent from the injury report. 7. This court has also noticed the fact that no motive is assigned to the present applicant as dispute was in between the deceased and the co-accused persons namely, Priyanshu Dubey and Sadab Beg. Further, the applicant has explained three cases criminal history and he has cooperated in the investigation proceedings and is languishing in jail since 26-06-2024 coupled with the fact that he has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. 8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. 9. 9. Let the applicant- Ateek Beg @ Gandhi, involved in the aforementioned 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, with the following conditions:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial (2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code . (3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. (4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code . 10. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. 11. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.