HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33545 of 2024 Court No. - 69 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Atharva Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shiv Dutt Shukla, learned AGA for the State-respondents and Sri Anshul Sengar, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the record. 2. 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. 0078 of 2024, under Sections 304, 308, 452, 376, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Airwakatra,, District Auraiya during pendency of the trial. 3. It has been argued by the learned Senior 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 26.5.2024. It is further submitted that the FIR has been lodged against unknown and as per FIR some unknown accused persons are said to have assaulted the brother and mother of the first informant by some hard and blunt object as a result of which the brother of the first informant died and his mother received grievous injury on her person. It is further submitted that during investigation the applicant is said to have made extra judicial confession before Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Atharva Dixit, Gaurav Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s): Ashutosh Mishra, Atul Kumar Shahi, G.A. Rahul .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Hari Babu and Sonu Yadav and thereafter the victim in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC has implicated the applicant under the pressure of the first informant, however, said statements have been recorded after much delay i.e. after the applicant is said to have made confession before Hari Babu and Sonu Yadav. It is further submitted that the applicant has been languishing in jail for the last two years and trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as only four witnesses have been examined so far. It is further submitted that PW-4 Virendra Singh in his testimony before the trial Court has categorically admitted that it was true that his daughter had informed him that it was the applicant who had committed the offence, however, despite that the applicant is not named in the FIR which raises serious doubt on the truthfulness of the version of the FIR. 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. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first informant has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and it is submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC has implicated the applicant and she has stated that the applicant came inside the house and undressed her and after hearing the knock he ran away after hitting her uncle and grand-mother by hard and blunt object i.e. Belcha as a result of which her uncle died and grand-mother has received grievous injury. 5. Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and it is submitted that the victim has supported the case of prosecution in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC. 6. First information report has been lodged against unknown after a delay of four days. Thereafter the applicant is said to have made BAIL No. 33545 of 2024 2 extra judicial confession before the witnesses Hari Babur and Sonu Yadav and after his extra judicial confession, statements of the victim under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC have been recorded in which she has implicated the applicant stating therein the applicant came inside the house and undressed her and after hearing the knock he ran away after hitting her uncle (Surendra) and grand- mother by hard and blunt object i.e. Belcha as a result of which her uncle died and grand-mother has received grievous injury. The first informant has appeared as PW-4 and in his statement he has stated that it is true that his daughter had informed him that it was the applicant who had committed the offence, however, despite that first informant has not named the applicant in the FIR, which has been lodged after considerable delay. 7. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected from record and considering the fact that only four witnesses have been examined so far and trial is not likely to be concluded near in future 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. 8. Let the applicant- Rahul involved in the aforesaid case crime be 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 BAIL No. 33545 of 2024 3 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. 9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 10. 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. 11. However, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the case as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year May 5, 2026 Abhishek BAIL No. 33545 of 2024 4 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad