HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32465 of 2025 Court No. - 66 (Sl. No. 82 out of 150) HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Shikher Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the informant; and Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record. 3. The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 0038 of 2025, under Sections 140(2), 103(1), 238(a) of the BNS, Police Station Araul, District Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He has nothing to do with the alleged offence. 5. Learned counsel has further submitted that no separate memo has been prepared regarding the recovery of the dead body of the deceased at the pointing out of the applicant; thus, the alleged recovery is wholly sham. It is also submitted that no weapon has been recovered at the instance of the applicant. The two witnesses of the recovery of the dead body are interested witnesses, being uncles of the informant. 6. Learned counsel has next submitted that initially, four persons were suspected to have committed the offence, and the applicant was not named in the FIR. It is next contended that the applicant himself accompanied the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bhawna Verma, Shikher Trivedi, Siya Ram Verma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., P.K. Singh Nazr Ali @ Husaini .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) informant during the search for the deceased. 7. Learned counsel has further submitted that an SMS was received by the informant prior to the lodging of the FIR at 06:29 AM, stating that the informant's son was in their custody and demanding Rs. 10 lakhs for his release by 05:00 PM. The informant allegedly replied at 06:30 AM seeking account details. Hence, it is argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated. 8. Learned counsel has lastly submitted that the applicant in in jail since 07.03.2025 and has no criminal antecedents. It is assured that if released on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application, contending that it is an open-and- shut case, as the dead body was recovered at the pointing out of the applicant, which is duly recorded in the inquest report. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and particularly the fact that the dead body was recovered at the pointing out of the applicant and that he is the sole accused who led to such recovery, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail. 11. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 12. 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. 13. 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. March 18, 2026 Siddhant BAIL No. 32465 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad