HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42221 of 2023 Court No. - 69 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Heard Mohd. Imran Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Uma Shanker Mishra, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record. 2. Name of Sri Abhitab Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appears as counsel for the first informant but he is not present. When the matter was last taken up on 13.4.2026, he was not present and the case was directed to be listed on 5.5.2026 with the observation that in case no one appears on behalf of the fist informant on the next date, the case shall be shall be heard in his absence in the first call. Therefore, I proceed to hear the case. 3. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 378 of 2020, under Sections 302, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Daurala, District Meerut during pendency of the trial. 4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he has been languishing in jail since 7.10.2020. It is submitted that this is the second bail application filed by the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed on merits. It is further submitted that similarly placed co-accused Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd Imran Khan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Abhitab Kumar Tiwari, G.A. Kapil .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Rahul has already been granted bail in second bail application whereas another co-accused Ajeet has also been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It is further submitted that the applicant has been languishing in jail for the last six years and till date only one witness has been examined. It is also submitted that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and it is submitted that the applicant has not explained his criminal history property. Learned AGA has further submitted that the weapon of the offence has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and co-accused Rahul Yadav. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that criminal history of the applicant has been explained property in the first bail application and the same has also been explained in the present application. 7. This is the second bail application filed by the applicant and his first bail application has been rejected on merit, however, the applicant has been languishing in jail for the last six years and till date only one witness has been examined. Similarly placed co- accused Rahul has already been granted bail in second bail application whereas another co-accused Ajeet has also been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the role of the applicant is not distinguishable from the role of above co- accused and the alleged weapon of offence is said to have been recovered from the joint possession of the applicant and co- accused Rahul Yadav. As per allegation in the FIR, a phone call was received on the mobile of Kuldeep, son of the informant whereby he told the informant that the said call was made from the co-accused Ajeet and he has called him at Sakauti market, as such BAIL No. 42221 of 2023 2 Kuldeep left the house at about 2 p.m. on 30.08.2020. At about 3 p.m., nephew of the informant Arvind came crying at the house stating that Kuldeep has been shot by somebody, as such informant along with other villagers reached Police Station-Daraula whereby he was informed that his son is at SDS Hospital, Modipuram and he has expired. At the hospital, Sudhanshu s/o Rambhool told the informant that Kuldeep had taken him along with him, as applicant, (Kapil) and co-accused Rahul had asked to meet him and thereby both of them reached Sakauti market, but they could not find them. Subsequently, son of the informant called the applicant on his mobile and he told him that they are at Mandaripur village, as such both of them moved to Mandaripur village and just before entering the village, co-accused Ajeet was found standing near a tube-well, as such Kuldeep(deceased) stopped and deboarded his motorcycle and started talking to the applicant. In the meantime, two more persons namely Kapil (the applicant) and Pawan also reached there and all the three accused persons took out their pistols. Immediately, Kuldeep (deceased) shouted and asked Sudhanshu to run away from the place of occurrence thereby, both of them started running away. As they reached near a sugarcane field, Sudhanshu heard gun shot and he called the villagers, as such, Kuldeep was rushed to SDS Hospital. After the said incident, younger son of the informant Sandeep had told him that from the last few days, three persons namely the applicant Kapil, Rahul and Ajeet used to roam about in the vicinity of their house and the deceased used to get a bit worried on seeing them. On being asked, deceased had told his brother that the applicant and two other co-accused persons were blackmailing him over a girl and might commit his murder also. 8. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected from record and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is ALLOWED. 9. Let the applicant- Kapil involved in the aforesaid case crime be BAIL No. 42221 of 2023 3 released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :- (i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) 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 351 of B.N.S.S. (iv) 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 the trial court. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 11. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order. May 5, 2026 Abhishek BAIL No. 42221 of 2023 4 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad