HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8285 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant who has stated that he has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant in the registry. The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.59 of 2025 under Section 137(2), 103(1), 238 BNS, Police Station Hardi, District Bahraich. In the prosecution case it is alleged that minor son of the informant Monu, aged about 11 years, had gone from his house to attend Holika Dahan on 13.03.2025 at around 9–10 p.m. Since then he is missing. It is alleged that some unknown persons enticed and took away the petitioner’s son. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that FIR has been lodged after delay of three days. The applicant is not named in the FIR. He submits that in the statement of the complainant and his wife, the applicant is not named. After several days of the FIR, on 03.04.2025, in the open field a human skeleton was found. A report regarding that was registered. Thereafter, applications were given by Neelam as well as by Gopal Yadav, who are husband and wife on 04.04.2025 and 05.04.2025. In those applications the applicant is still not named. The statement of the second wife of the informant was also taken wherein the applicant was not named. After several days, one Amrit Lal Yadav, aged about 9 years, stated that the applicant had called Monu Yadav at the time of Holika Dahan. Similar statements have Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Pramod Kumar Dwivedi, Sandeep Rawat Sonu Yadav .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) been given by two-three villagers. On the basis of these statements, the statement of Sobharam Verma was recorded, who stated that there were rumors in the village that the applicant may have committed the murder. After that the applicant was arrested and in his confessional statement it has come that he committed murder of the deceased by strangulation. The confessional statement of the applicant in police custody is not linked with any recovery. It is submitted that the cause of death shown by the prosecution in the confessional statement is not corroborated by the expert opinion, who has opined that cause of death may be due to injuries caused by hard and blunt object. Cause of death opined is antemortem head injury. Thus, the prosecution case shows two contradictory causes of death of the deceased, both of which cannot be correct at the same time. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. The applicant has been falsely implicated. The applicant has no criminal history. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that DNA test of the deceased has been conducted. DNA test report matches with his father and mother Neelam and Ram Gopal. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record. On due consideration of the facts that the case is of circumstantial evidence; the applicant has no criminal antecedents; he is in jail since 10.07.2025; contradictory reasons assigned in the prosecution case regarding the cause of death, confessional statement of the accused and expert opinion; prima facie chain of circumstances appears to be not completed, and without expressing any opinion on 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 Sonu Yadav 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: BAIL No. 8285 of 2025 2 (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). September 4, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S BAIL No. 8285 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench