Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:28061 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3500 of 2025 Applicant :- S.I.Sunil Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anjali Singh Tomer,Inder Pal Singh Tomar,Vivek Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Vivek Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA, for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.598 of 2024, under Sections 108,238(1), 127(2) and 3(5) BNS, Police Station Kotwali Shamli, District Shamli during pendency of the trial. 3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 14.10.2024 against the applicant and others and according to the FIR, applicant and other accused persons were the Police Personnel and the son of the informant was detained in the house of applicant where they committed his murder. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Section 103 BNS but when during investigation it was revealed that actually deceased committed suicide then the instant matter was converted under Section 108 BNS. 5. He further submits that applicant is the Sub Inspector in U.P.Police and on 14.10.2024 at about 12.17 hours an FIR was lodged against the deceased, i.e., son of the informant with regard to enticement of a girl and afterthat a Police Team was constituted to trace the abductee and applicant along with his team recovered the abductee from Ambala, State of Haryana, who was along with the deceased. It is further submitted that after that when they were returning then on the way unfortunately their vehicle broke down and thereafter however, abductee was handed over to her family members but the deceased, the son of the informant, was kept in the house of the applicant. It is further submitted that while he was in the house of applicant in the night unfortunately he committed suicide. 6. He further submits that if an accused under detention committed suicide then it cannot be said that due to abetment of the police offer, he committed suicide. 7. He further submits that except bald and verbal allegation of abetment and torture there is no cogent evidence against the applicant in this regard on record. 8. He further submits that post mortem report also suggests that except ligature mark deceased did not sustain any other injury. 9. He further submits that applicant is responsible police officer and his track record till date is clean. 10. He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 15.10.2024. 11. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 13. However, from the record it reflects that deceased, i.e., son of the informant died in the house of the applicant, who was the Police Officer but it reflects that he committed suicide and he was an accused in a case with regard to enticement of a minor girl and considering this fact the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that if an accused of a case under detention committed suicide then Police Officer cannot be held responsible, cannot be ruled out at this stage. 14. Further, except bald and verbal allegation of torture, there is no cogent evidence in this regard against the applicant on record. 15. Further, post mortem report also suggests that deceased died due to hanging and he sustained only ligature mark and considering these facts the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no cogent evidence of abetment against the applicant on record, cannot be also completely brushed aside at this stage. 16. Further, there is no material on record which can suggest that earlier also applicant faced any such charge rather record suggests that his track record is clean. 17. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 15.10.2024. 18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 19. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 20. Let the applicant-S.I.Sunil Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 21. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant. 22. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 28.2.2025 SKM Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad