HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9373 of 2025 Court No. - 12 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.192 of 2025, under Section 103(1), 3(5) BNS, Police Station Makhi, District Unnao. In the prosecution case it is alleged that the son of the complainant, namely Ved Prakash Pal, aged about 35 years, was serving in the Police Department as a Constable and was posted at Police Lines, Bahraich. On official duty, he had gone to District Lucknow for postal work and after completing the government work, he came home. Thereafter, he took his niece to Shuklaganj by WagonR car, accompanied by villagers Raj Kumar Pal @ Poosu Pal and Suresh Pal. At Shuklaganj, he met his associate Sandeep Pal, and while returning, they stopped at the house of Ram Naresh Pal. It is further alleged that at about 10:37 p.m., when a call was made from home, the son of the complainant informed that they were present at the house of the Ram Naresh Pal and would be returning shortly. Thereafter, despite several calls made during the night, no contact could be established with the son of the complainant. At about 1:38 a.m., contact was made on the phone of Suresh Pal, who informed that they were still present at the house of Ram Naresh and they would be returning home soon. However, the son of the complainant did not return. At about 6:00 a.m. in the morning, some other villagers informed the applicant that the dead body of his son was lying in the field situated adjacent to the house. Upon receiving this information, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vinod Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Suresh Pal .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) the complainant along with others reached the spot. The complainant alleges that his son has been killed by Raj Kumar Pal, Suresh Pal, Chandrasen Pal, Shiv Balak Pal, and some other unknown persons jointly. The incident took place in the night of 22/23.05.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no eye-witness to the incident. According to the prosecution story itself, prior to the incident the deceased, applicant, and co-accused persons were present at the house of Ram Naresh Pal. However, Ram Naresh Pal has not been made an accused for reasons best known to the prosecution. Neither his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded by the Investigating Officer. No recovery has been made from the applicant. Postmortem report shows eight ante-mortem injuries. The co-accused Rajkumar Pal has been granted bail by this court vide order dated 3.9.2025 passed in Bail No.8368. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer but could not dispute the above factual position. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. On due consideration to the facts that except the last seen evidence, there appears to be no other material against the applicant; the role of Ram Naresh Pal remains unexplained, as he has neither been made an accused nor his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.; the applicant has no criminal history; bail order of co-accused, Charge-sheet in this case has already been filed; the applicant is in jail since 25.05.2025; prima facie, it appears to be a case of circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances is not complete 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, on the ground of parity. Let the applicant Suresh Pal, be released on bail in aforesaid case crime 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. BAIL No. 9373 of 2025 2 (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). Learned A.G.A. is at liberty to advice the concerned Superintendent of Police to rectify the lapses, if any, in the investigation. September 26, 2025 kkb/ BAIL No. 9373 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench