Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49006 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7820 of 2025 Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.44 of 2025 under Section 103(1), 238(b), 61(2) BNS, Police Station Ranipur, District Bahraich. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that when the informant woke up on 23.02.2025, she found that her husband, Phoolchand (deceased), was missing. Around 5:00 a.m., the family members started searching for him and later found his body lying inside the canal. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that except the alleged confessional statement of the applicant and the statements of the last seen witnesses, namely Panna Lala Verma and two other persons, which were recorded about two months after the incident, there is no other material available with the prosecution to implicate the applicant. He further submits that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. The co-accused have already been granted bail on the same set of evidence by the learned court below, which order is on record as Annexure-14 to the bail application. He further submits that the prosecution story, based on the alleged confessional statement, is highly improbable. If the applicant had actually committed the murder of the deceased, then the other family members present in the house at the relevant time namely, the mother of the accused, two granddaughters of the deceased, the wife of the accused, and his uncle would have certainly witnessed the occurrence or at least given statements regarding the act attributed to the applicant. It is improbable that no one saw the incident and yet the dead body could have been taken out of the house and thrown into the canal unnoticed. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the facts mentioned above. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record. On due consideration to the fact that the cause of death shown in the postmortem report was due to antemortem injuries; it is a case of circumstantial evidence; except confessional statement of the accused and the last seen evidence recorded nearly 50 days after the incident, prima facie, there appears to be no other material against the applicant at this stage; the applicant is in custody since 21.04.2025 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Ajay Kumar be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below 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 IPC (now Section 269 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 IPC (now Section 209 BNS). Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench