Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20450 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12412 of 2024 Applicant :- Ram Milan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Raman Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kamal Kishor Tiwari Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Ashish Raman Mishra, the learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Shikha Sinha, the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State, Sri Kamal Kishor Tiwari, the learned counsel for the informant and perused the records. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 253 of 2024, under Section 103(1) B.N.S., registered at Police Station Kotwali Murtiha, District Bahraich. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 28.08.2024 stating that the informant got information that her bhabhi Ram Bitti had been killed by some unknown person between 5 and 6 p.m. on 27.08.2024 and her dead body was lying in the verandah of her house. The postmortem examination report mentions a sharp lacerated injury over frond of neck and lacerated wounds over both sides of chest and the death was opined to have taken place about one day ago because of shock and hemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries Some witnesses stating during investigation that Ram Bitti was second wife of her husband who had earlier married Chandrawati. Ram Bitti thereafter one Ram Surat in a temple at Bahraich and Ram Surat kept on visiting her place. In the evening of 27.08.2024, he saw a large crowd gathered near the house of Ram Bitti. Upon going there, he came to know that Dharm Raj S/o Jagrani had telephonically informed Ram Bitti's neighbour Uttam Verma that Ram Bitti has been killed inside her home. Thereafter, he went to the police station along with Jagrani. The applicant Ram Milan also used to visit the house of Ram Bitti A copy of the call detail record of the applicant's mobile phone has been annexed with the bail application to support the contention that the applicant did not use to visit the place of Ram Bitti although his location was at a place about two kilometers away from the house of Ram Bitti in the morning of the incident. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of bail application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant's involvement in one case has been disclosed in the rejoinder affidavit, in which he has been granted bail. 5. The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copies of statements recorded during investigation and no witness has stated that he had seen the applicant at or near the place of the incident on the date of incident. The informant has also filed a counter affidavit. 6. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and the learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail and they have stated that although the F.I.R. states that the incident took place between 6- 7 p.m. since nobody had seen the incident, this time was mentioned by estimation as the dead body was seen in the evening. However, the postmortem examination report mentions the time of death to be one day ago and the deceased could have died in the morning. The applicant's location has been found to be near the place of incident in the morning. 7. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R.; that one of the witnesses has stated that the applicant killed the deceased due to a property dispute, whereas another witness stated that the applicant wanted to marry the deceased; that the mobile phone location of the informant has been found about about 2 kilometers away from the place of incident at about ten hours before the time of incident; that the allegation that the applicant frequently used to visit the place of deceased is not supported by the mobile location of the applicant coupled with the fact that the investigation stands already completed and the applicant is a 65 years old person, who is languishing in jail since 03.09.2024 and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime. 8. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed. 9. Let the applicant-Ram Milan 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 magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court. (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) Order Date :- 10.4.2025 Ram. Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench