Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47147 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5991 of 2025 Applicant :- Ranu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sheikh Mohammad Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shiv Pal Singh Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. 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. He seeks parity with the bail order of co-accused Upendra Yadav who has been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.04.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3048 of 2025. 6. Learned counsel for applicant submits that except confessional statement of the accused applicant and the co- accused Rehana, there is no other material with the police. Applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 06.02.2025. 7. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer and have submitted that the complicity of the accused is evident in the confessional statement of the accused himself as well as the co-accused Rehana. Applicant is husband of Rehana. Rehana is alleged to have having illicit relationship with the deceased. 8. On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 06.02.2025, bail order of co-accused Upendra Yadav (supra), case is of circumstantial evidence, in the F.I.R. eight named and five unnamed persons are suspected to have caused the incident, there is no eye witness, there is no direct evidence except the suspicion and the confessional statement of the co- accused persons and the applicant and therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant Ranu be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions: (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 of the Indian Panel Code (now Section 269 of 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 Section 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 of the Indian Panel Code (now Section 209 BNS). Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Saurabh Yadav/- Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench