Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:60749 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4226 of 2025 Applicant :- Jitendra @ Chinchu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Pandey,Suresh Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Yogendra Pal Singh Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Saurabh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Yogendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Shatrughna Yadav, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 498 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 61(2) BNS, Police Station- Dadri, District- Gautam Budha Nagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however, as per allegation, applicant along with co-accused Gabbar and two unknown associates committed the murder of brother of the informant but admittedly no one could see the real incident and it appears, on the basis of suspicion due to enmity, informant disclosed the name of the applicant and others in the FIR. 4. He further submitted that however, when the statement of the informant was recorded during investigation then he developed the story and stated, he witnessed that applicant and co-accused were putting the dead body of the deceased in the boot of his car but as this fact has not been disclosed by him in the FIR, therefore, no reliance can be placed on his statement. 5. He further submitted that however, as per prosecution, when applicant and co-accused Gabbar were arrested then on their pointing out one screwdriver, used in the crime, was recovered but from the recovery memo, it reflects, recovery was made from a place, which was accessible to all. 6. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 22.10.2024. 7. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that a day before deceased himself lodged a complaint against applicant and only due to this reason, next day he along with others committed the murder of the deceased and however, nobody could see the real incident but when the statement of the informant was recorded then he categorically stated that when after receiving information, he arrived at spot then he witnessed that applicant and other accused persons were putting the dead body of the deceased in the boot of his car but they fairly conceded, this fact has not been disclosed by the informant in the FIR. 8. They however, further submitted that on the pointing out of applicant and co-accused Gabbar one screwdriver, which allegedly used in the crime, was recovered but could not dispute the fact that the alleged recovery was made from a place, which was accessible to all. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 10. However, applicant is named in the FIR but admittedly no one could see the real incident including informant and however, when statement of the informant was recorded during investigation then he stated that when after receiving information, he arrived at spot then found that applicant and other accused persons were putting the dead body of the deceased in the boot of his car but this fact was not disclosed by the informant in the FIR, therefore, argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant in this regard, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage. 11. Further, however, as per prosecution, when applicant and co- accused Gabbar were arrested then on their pointing out one screwdriver, which allegedly used in the crime, was recovered but after perusing the recovery memo, which has been annexed along with the instant bail application, it reflects, place of recovery was accessible to all. Further, even story of recovery mentioned in the recovery memo does not inspire confidence. 12. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 23.10.2024 i.e. for last almost six months. 13. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 14. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 15. Let the applicant- Jitendra @ Chinchu be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 16. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant. 17. 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. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 KK Patel Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad