Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20238 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3048 of 2025 Applicant :- Upendra Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Of U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Diwakar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.31 of 2025 under Sections 103(1), 238(3), 3(5), 315 B.N.S. 2023 and 4/25 Arms Act registered at Police Station- Hardutta Nagar Girant, District- Shrawasti. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 31.01.2025 implicating eight persons on the basis of suspicion and alleging involvement of five unnamed persons, stating that upon receiving a phone call at about 06:30 AM on 30.01.2025, the informant's 30 years old son went on a motorcycle while still talking on a phone. At about 07:00 AM on 31.01.2025, the informant got knowledge of his son's dead body lying in a grove. He expressed suspicion that the eight named persons and five unknown persons have killed his son due to an old animosity. 4. The postmortem examination report mentions numerous incised wounds and punctured wounds and the cause of death has been opined to be shock and hemorrhage due to antemortem injuries. 5. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., the informant and his son reiterated the FIR version. The persons implicated in the FIR on the basis of suspicion, stated during investigation that they are not involved in commission of the offence. All of them stated that the deceased had illicit relations with several girls of the village and they expressed suspicion that the deceased might have been killed by someone due to the aforesaid reason. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer recorded statement of Chandan Yadav, another brother of the deceased, who stated that he had seen Rehana, her husband Ranu and the applicant Upendra Yadav standing near Panchayat Bhawan in close proximity of time when the deceased had left for the last time. Thereafter, at about 05:00 PM, the applicant and Ranu were standing near the shop. Thereafter, the police had arrested the applicant and has recorded his custodial confessional statement. 6. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is a young man having no criminal history and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. 7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application and on the basis of written instructions, he has submitted that complicity of the applicant in commission of the offence has been established during investigation, which is still going on. 8. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the FIR expressed suspicion that eight persons named in it and five unnamed persons had caused the incident due to old animosity and the informant has not disclosed name of all the persons with whom he had old animosity and against whom he has suspicion of causing the incident; during investigation all the named accused persons stated that they are not involved in commission of the offence and they further expressed their suspicion that the deceased might have been killed due to his illicit relations with several girls of the village and their names have been dropped by the Investigating Officer; after this suspicion expressed by the suspected persons, brother of the deceased stated five days after the incident that he had seen the applicant standing with Ranu near his shop and the applicant has been implicated on this basis; that besides the aforesaid statement, there is no other material available at this stage which may support the allegation that the applicant is involved in commission of the offence and that no incriminating material has been recovered on the pointing out or from possession of the applicant, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime. 9. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed. 10. Let the applicant- Upendra Yadav be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court. . [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] Order Date :- 10.4.2025 -Amit K- Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench