HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 935 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Jagdeshwar Prasad Yadav, Advocate who filed vakalatnama for the complainant which is taken on record, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record. 2.It is alleged in the prosecution case that on 6.6.2007 at about 5.30a.m., Arundas along with his companion Sanjay alias Vijay came at the house of the complainant, talked with his elder brother Mahavir Singh and thereafter took his brother to the house of one Shivji Singh of the village. Later on, while returning at at about 6.30p.m., when his brother tried to step down from the motorcycle in front of the house of Ram Aadhar Singh, then Sanjay, companion of Arundas opened fire on his brother due to which he died on the spot. 3.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the complainant in his statement under section 161 CrPC has assigned the role of driving motorcycle to the co-accused Arundas who has been granted bail. The complainant has not taken the name of the accused applicant. However, the investigating officer by committing mischief has introduced the name of the applicant on hearsay evidence. Against that, an application was given by the complainant against the investigating officer which is filed as Annexure No.2 to the rejoinder affidavit. The complainant in his statement under section 164 CrPC has alleged complicity of Arundas and Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vijay Nath Pandey, Abhishek, Anand Dubey, Anurag Singh, Ashwani Kumar Singh, Prateek Tewari, Utkarsh Misra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ram Suphal Sitaram @ Vijay Chela Ramsharan Das .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko .....Opposite Party(s) Sanjay who were assigned the role of firing. The applicant is innocent according to the version of the complainant himself. The applicant seeks parity with the bail order of Arundas. It is submitted that the case of the applicant is on better footing. The applicant has no previous criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 7.10.2024. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. 4.Learned A.G.A. and complainant's counsel opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that Arundas has been acquitted and one of the prosecution witness has taken his name. It is submitted on behalf of the complainant that the accused applicant has absconded for years, therefore, he is not entitled to bail. Rebutting this, applicant's counsel submits that merely because the applicant was absconding cannot make a material to convict him or his bail can be denied. In this context, he has relied on a judgment of Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2294 of 2010 Sekaran versus The State of Tamil Nadu. 5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, the co-accused, named above, has been granted bail, application moved by the complainant against the investigating officer, judgment in Sekaran's case (supra), statement of the complainant under section 164 CrPC, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. 6.Let the applicant Sitaram alias Vijay Chela Ramsharan Das, involved in Case Crime No.315 of 2007 under section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Nawabganj, district Gonda, 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- BAIL No. 935 of 2025 2 (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) 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. (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 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. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A I.P.C. (now 269 BNS) (vi) 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. (now 84 BNSS) 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 I.P.C. (now 209 BNS). 7.The application is allowed accordingly. September 17, 2025 kkb/ BAIL No. 935 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench