Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19350 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6043 of 2024 Applicant :- Ravi Bharti @ Pintu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh,Vaibhav Srivastava,Vishnu Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Surya Prakash Singh Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Vaibhav Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Surya Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0024 of 2024, under Sections - 363, 302, 201 I.P.C., registered at Police Station - Tarun, District - Ayodhya/Faizabad. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on on 23.01.2024 stating that the informant's son aged about 8 years had gone out of his home at about 7 p.m. on 23.01.2024 and he went missing. In the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 CrPC, he expressed a suspicion that Jai Prakash had kidnapped his son. 4. The dead body of the son of the informant/ victim was recovered from a pit in a jungle. The post-mortem examination report mentions incised wounds on his abdomen, his large and small intestines were exposed and cause of death has been opined to be shock and haemorrhage as a result of the ante- mortem injuries. In the statement of the informant recorded on 21.08.2024, he stated that there is an old property dispute between his family and Jai Prakash Yadav and Jai Prakash had threatened to settle the score. Some persons had seen Jai Prakash along with another person namely Mehandi Hasan son of Peer Mohammad taking the informant's son on his motor- cycle and some persons had told the informant that both the aforesaid persons had killed his son and had hidden the dead body of the deceased somewhere. 5. The police arrested Jai Prakash on 29.01.2024 and a knife was recovered from an open place on the pointing out of Jai Prakash. In his custodial statement, he stated that he along with Mehandi Hasan had killed the victim. 6. On 30.01.2024, the informant gave an application to the police stating that two persons namely Ashok and Arvind had seen Jai Prakash and Mehandi Hasan taking away the informant's son. Subsequently, on 06.02.2024, the informant gave another application to the police stating that Jai Prakash and the Applicant Ravi Bharti had taken away and killed his son. He stated that Jai Prakash had wrongly implicated Mehandi Hasan. Several persons had seen Jai Prakash and the applicant and Ashok and Arvind had mentioned the name of Mehandi Hasan under some confusion. After this, the investigating officer recorded the statement of Arvind on the same date wherein he stated that he had seen Jai Prakash and the applicant taking away a boy aged about 8 years on their motor-cycle. After the dead body of the boy was found in the jungle, he believed that Jai Prakash and the applicant had killed the boy. He further stated that whatever he had seen, he told to the informant. After this, the investigating officer recorded additional statement of Jai Prakash on 15.03.2024 wherein he stated that the applicant was involved with him in commission of the offence. This statement was recorded after the applicant had already been taken into custody on 07.05.2024, a photograph taken from a CCTV camera has been annexed with the affidavit to indicate that the applicant had been taken away by the police and his arrest has wrongly been made on 07.02.2024. 7. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the informant. The learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application and he has submitted that the victim in the present case is an 8 years old boy who has been killed mercilessly by inflicting numerous stab wounds. The offence is heinous in nature and the applicant is a contract killer who has committed a heinous crime and therefore he is not entitled to be released on bail. 8. The learned A.G.A. for the State has also opposed this application and he has submitted that under the orders of the Magistrate concerned, the investigating officer had gone to the jail to take the samples of hair and blood of the applicant for D.N.A. examination but the applicant declined to give the samples. This act of the applicant gives rise to adverse inference against the applicant. 9. 8. The learned A.G.A. for the State has also opposed this application and he has submitted that under the orders of the Magistrate concerned, the investigating officer had gone to the jail to take the samples of hair and blood of the applicant for D.N.A. examination but the applicant declined to give the samples. This act of the applicant gives rise to adverse inference against the applicant. 9. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that initially the FIR was lodged against unknown persons; subsequently, the informant stated that on 28.01.2024, his son had been killed by Jai Prakash due to an old property dispute and that some person had seen Jai Prakash and one Mehandi Hasan taking away the informant's son on a motor-cycle; upon this statement, Jai Prakash was arrested and a knife was recovered on his pointing out from an open place and in his custodial statement, he stated that he had killed the informant's son along with Mehandi Hasan; subsequently, on 30.11.2024, the informant himself stated that two persons namely Ashok and Arvind had seen Jai Prakash along with Mehandi Hasan taking away his son; it was for the first time on 06.02.2024 that the informant stated that Mehandi Hasan was not involved in commission of the killing of his son and it was the applicant who committed the offence along with Jai Prakash and he has stated that Jai Prakash had wrongly mentioned the name of Mehandi Hasan and witnesses Ashok and Arvind had wrongly mentioned the name of Mehandi Hasan under some confusion and therefore the applicant has been implicated in the present case; Ashok and Arvind both have stated that they had seen Jai Prakash and the applicant taking away a boy and they have not stated that they had identified the boy; both the aforesaid persons have stated that after coming to know about the dead body of the boy having been recovered, they came to know that the boy had been killed by Jai Prakash and the applicant yet this application was not filed promptly and initially the informant, Ashok and Arvind stated that Mehandi Hasan was involved in commission of offence with Jai Prakash; that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 07.02.2024 and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, 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. 10. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed. 11. Let the applicant- Ravi Bharti @ Pintu 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 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 :- 3.4.2025 (Manoj K.) Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench