HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10835 of 2024 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record. 2. It is alleged in the prosecution case that son of the informant Satyajeet Ojha @ Badelal Ojha, aged about 27 years used to work in the shop of the applicant. On 27.05.2024, he went to the shop of the applicant, however, he did not return till 9:30 P.M, then the informant and the family members went to the house of the applicant and found that the clothes of the applicant were stained with blood. He told that he had been robbed in the evening. He has stated that along with him, there were other persons namely Pappu Harijan, Amber Mishra, Sunil, Dharmendra and Udaybhaan, however, no whereabouts or information regarding the son of the informant was given by him. 3-4 days ago, the son of the informant indulged in some quarrel with Pappu, who threatened to kill the son of the informant. An apprehension has been raised that these persons alongwith unknown co-accused have committed murder of the son of the informant and have misplaced the dead body. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the post-mortem report, the cause of death is Asphyxia, due to ante-mortem strangulation. There are three ante-mortem injuries including the ligature mark behind the back of the deceased. 4. He further submits that the co-accused persons namely Pramod Kumar @ Pappu Harijan, Dharmendra Kumar and Anil Kumar have been granted bail by a co-ordinate bench of this court in Criminal Misc Bail Application No. 3856 of 2025, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12074 of 2024 & Criminal Misc Bail Application No.11300 of 2024 vide orders dated 08.07.2025, 23.05.2025 and 17.07.2025 respectively. He seeks parity with the bail order of the said co- Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arun Kumar Mishra, Abhishek Mishra, Puttu Lal Misra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ramakar Shukla Durgesh Shukla .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko .....Opposite Party(s) accused. 5. He further submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated. A blood stained pant and T-shirt is alleged to have been recovered from the house of the applicant. The further submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that, after three days of the incident, nobody will keep the blood stained clothes in his house, rather, he will wash them. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained by the learned counsel for the applicant. 6. It is further submitted that the two public witnesses shown in the recovery are false and fictional persons as their statements have not been recorded by the Investigating Officer, neither there are witnesses in the chargesheet. It is also submitted that the co-accused Pramod has sustained simple injuries, three in total, whereas, the applicant has not received any injury. The recovery of chappal shown on the pointing out of the co-accused is also false. He further submits that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail and have submitted that except the recovery of blood stained pant and T-shirt from the applicant, the case of the applicant is similar to those of the co-accused persons, but they could not dispute that it is a case of parity. 8. Upon a query made by the court, it has been submitted by learned A.G.A that the blood stained clothes of the applicant has not been tallied with the D.N.A of the deceased. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that it is a case of circumstantial evidence, the fact that the public witnesses shown by the Investigating Officer in the recovery memo are also not made witnesses in the chargesheet nor their statements have been recorded by the Investigating Officer; the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the applicant is in jail since 29.05.2024, he seeks parity with the bail orders of co- accused Pramod Kumar @ Pappu Harijan, Dharmendra Kumar and Anil Kumar 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. 10. Let the applicant Durgesh Shukla, involved in Case Crime No. 172 of 2024 under section 364, 302, 201 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Pratapgarh, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- BAIL No. 10835 of 2024 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 I.P.C. (now 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 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 I.P.C. (now 209 BNS). 10. The application is allowed on the ground of parity. September 10, 2025 DiVYa BAIL No. 10835 of 2024 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench