Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:62731 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4718 of 2025 Applicant :- Anuj Kumar Dagar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Shahi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rudra Pratap Singh Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Atul Kumar Shahi and Umesh Kumar Singh, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Rudra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record. 3. Vakalatnama of Sri Rudra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the first informant is not on record despite his name being printed in the cause list. Office to trace out the same and place it on record by the next date and make a note in the order sheet regarding the same. 4. This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the applicant-Anuj Kumar Dagar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.287 of 2024, under Sections 302, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali, district Mainpuri. 5. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 30.4.2024 by Arti Chauhan against unknown driver of Bolero vehicle alleging therein that her husband Ashok Singh Chauhan on 30.4.2024 at about 5.45 a.m. went to bring milk and as soon as he reached footpath of kharpari ka bamba, a bolero vehicle came from behind and hit him intentionally due to which he fell down. Then with an intention to murder him, the driver of the vehicle repeatedly pulled the vehicle on him due to which her husband died. The incident was seen by Sharad Chauhan @ Raja and Subodh Singh Chauhan and other persons. After the incident the persons in the vehicle saw whether her husband was alive or not and then went away. She was informed about the incident by the witnesses. A report be lodged and action be taken. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that Subodh Singh Chauhan, the alleged eye-witness was interrogated who disclosed the name of the applicant and stated that the applicant was previously a police constable after which the applicant was made as an accused. It is submitted that the police has then on 16.5.2024 shown the recovery of a mobile phone and some cash from the possession of the applicant along with vehicle which was used in the incident which was being driven by the applicant himself. The said recovery is a false and planted recovery. While placing para no.26 of the affidavit in support of bail application and para no.2 of the supplementary affidavit dated 2.3.2025, it is submitted that the applicant is reported to be involved in 19 cases but his involvement in the said cases is false and without any credible evidence. Co-accused Manish @ Vipin has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.2.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.38824 of 2024, copy of the said order produced by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. Co-accused Neeraj Yadav, has also been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.26961 of 2024, copy of the same is annexed as Annexure No.13 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application. The applicant is in jail since 22.5.2024. 7. Per contra learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the person who had done the wreckey before the present incident. It is submitted that the applicant is a contract killer. The applicant was a police constable earlier. It is submitted that the vehicle by which the accident was done was taken to Bunty mistry who stated of damage to the vehicle and further that the bonnet of the vehicle was having blood-stains on it. Bail application of co-accused Arvind Pal, the driver of the vehicle has been rejected by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.2.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.37856 of 2024. Rs.50,000/- have been recovered from the house of the applicant which was given as share to the applicant from the money given in contract for the incident. The applicant is a hardened criminal having criminal history of 19 cases. The vehicle by which the incident has been done was taken by the applicant to the workshop for its repair. Learned counsel for the State also opposed the prayer for bail and adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the first informant. 8. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant was the person who was apprehended driving the vehicle in question. The garage owner stated of the applicant coming with the vehicle in a damaged condition for its repair after the incident which had blood marks on it. The money has been recovered from the house of the applicant. The applicant has criminal history of 19 cases against him. The postmortem report of the deceased corroborates with the prosecution story. Criminal history goes to show that he has been challaned under the Gangsters Act twice. In so far as case of co- accused who have been granted bail are concerned, their case is on a different footing. 9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Gaurav Kuls Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad