HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4488 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Azhar Hussain, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 07 of 2022, under Sections 302 & 34 of I.P.C., Police Station - Eatmaddaula, District - Agra, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant along with co-accused persons, Kachera @ Devi Charan and Mahender is stated to have assaulted the brother of the informant with knives and committed his murder on 02.01.2022 at about 08:00 PM. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about three and a half hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that the prosecution story stands falsified from the fact that the main accused person, Mahender, who carried motive, has been exonerated by the police. The statement of eye- witness Vinod has not been recorded by the I.O. The independent witnesses have categorically denied having seen the applicant or any of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Azhar Hussain, Ravitendra Pratap Singh Chandel Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ranjeet .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) the named accused persons at the place of occurrence rather they have stated that some unknown person has committed the said offence. No witness has been examined to date. 7. Learned counsel has lastly contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 06.01.2022, having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 8. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is named in the FIR and the informant is the eye-witness to the incident along with one Vinod, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the applicant is named in the FIR and the informant himself is an eye-witness to the incident, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 10. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 11. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. 12. 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. October 10, 2025 Siddhant BAIL No. 4488 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad