Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75008 Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38952 of 2024 Applicant :- Avnish Kumar Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kawya,Ram Autar Verma,Sarvesh Kumar Dubey,Sushil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Arvind Kumar Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J. List has been revised. This case is listed peremptorily today because of illness of counsel for the informant, Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, on the last date but even today no one has responded when the matter is taken up. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ram Autar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. There are allegations in the F.I.R against the applicant of committing the murder of his brother-in-law (saadhu). Counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication of applicant. The missing report of the deceased was lodged on 11.06.2024 at 11:00 p.m in the night but the F.I.R was lodged on 19.06.2024 clearly implicating the applicant and other co-accused. Counsel for the applicant also submits that in the statements of the witnesses it has come that they had informed first informant that they have seen the deceased in the company of applicant on 11.06.2024 itself but the F.I.R was lodged on 19.06.2024 only at 13:19 hours. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. There is no eye-witness account and the deceased and applicant are closely related since two real sisters are married to them. It is a case of false implication. The applicant is in jail since 20.06.2024 and has no criminal history to his credit. On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 677 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant, Avnish Kumar, involved in Case Crime No. 217 of 2024, under Sections- 302, 120-B and 201 IPC, Police Station- Kurawali, District- Mainpuri, 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. (ii) 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. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) 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 then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (v) 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. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Rohit Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad