Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:126689 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43666 of 2024 Applicant :- Munazir Rafi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Bhushan Upadhyay,Mohammad Khalid,Vishvajit Tiwari,Yogesh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Abhinav Tripathi,Deepak Dubey,G.A. Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Imran Ullah, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for the informant, Shri Arimardan Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case. 2. The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of applicant, Munazir Rafi, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 596 of 2024, under Sections 140 (1), 103 (1), 61 (2), 238, 3 (5) BNS, Police Station- Kasganj, District- Kasganj. The bail application of the applicant has been rejected by Sessions Judge, Kasganj, on 30.10.2024. 3. The allegation made in the FIR is that on 03.09.2024, applicant along with other co-accused persons abducted the wife of informant and committed her murder. The dead body of the deceased was recovered from the Canal of Rekhpur. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused- applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this case crime number and is languishing in jail since 09.09.2024. He has criminal antecedent of four cases, which has been explained in para 34 of the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the bail application and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the incident took place on 03.09.2024 and its FIR was lodged after delay of three days without giving any explanation for delay in lodging the FIR. The postmortem of the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 05.09.2024 and as per the post mortem examination report, the cause of death could not be ascertained. Visceral organs preserved for toxico-chemical analysis. There is no eye witness of the present case. There is no direct or indirect evidence against the applicant. The allegation made against the applicant in collusion with rival parties, while the real culprit Renu and bobby confessed that the conspiracy of murder of deceased was cooked by Sunil Fauji, but the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant is advocate in the District Court of Kasganj. He is doing the practice in criminal and civil side. He has filed his Vakalatnama in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj on behalf of the accused persons namely Haidar and Sulman Mustafa on 31.07.2024, while the deceased is opposing the bail of Haidar and Sulman, due to this reason the first informant got annoyed and falsely implicated the applicant for the purpose to mount pressure upon the applicant as counsel. Hence, bail has been prayed for. 6. Per contra learned counsel for the first informant and A.G.A. have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that during course of investigation, the investigating officer recorded the statement of 3 independent witnesses namely Ajay Kashyap, Sultan Singh and Devendra on 26.11.2024, who in their statements have stated that the applicant and other accused persons were talking with Sunil, Raja and one other girl and after some time about 2:00 p.m., from court gate, the deceased Mohini Tomar was taken away by Sunil and Raja. It is submitted that second statement of Smt. Gurmala was recorded by investigating officer, who in her statement specifically stated that Sunil and Raja have told her about entire incident as to how they had taken away the deceased and it has been also stated that they have been paid for the same by Munazir (applicant) and Kamil. It is next submitted that the applicant is harden criminal having criminal history of 5 cases including the present case and he with the help of other accused persons managed murder of the deceased and actively participated in the present case, and as such, the applicant is not liable to be released on bail. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activity. 7. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be inappropriate to discuss the evidence in depth at this stage because it is likely to influence the trial of the accused. But, from the perusal of the evidences, collected during investigation so far, prima facie, the involvement of the accused in the present case cannot be ruled out. No reason is found to falsely implicate the applicant/accused. Therefore, there is no good ground to release the applicant-accused on bail at this stage. All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant pertain to the merits of the case and the same cannot be considered while considering application for grant of bail. This court is unable to form an opinion at this stage that the accused has not committed an offence. 9. In the ultimate conclusion, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of the offence, severity of punishment, in my opinion, no case for bail is made out. 10. Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected. 11. It is clarified that the observations made regarding the bail application is limited to the decision of the bail application and any observations made herein shall not effect the trial of the case. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 v.k.updh. Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad