Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15979 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12724 of 2024 Applicant :- Shiv Prasad Kori Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Nath Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Satyendra Nath Mishra, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mohd. Ashif Khan, learned AGA for the State and Ms. Atiya Abid, the learned counsel for the complainant. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 108/2024, under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC, Police Station Dhammaur, District Sultanpur. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged on 10.06.2024 alleging that the informant's son aged about 18-19 years had gone away from his home at about 07:30 p.m. on 09.06.2024 but he did not come back. Upon making a search, his beheaded dead body was found. He stated that he or his son had no animosity with any person. Two unknown persons had taken away his son from RDS agency but he had no knowledge about those persons. 4. In the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he reiterated the FIR version. It is recorded in the case diary that a mukhbir informed the Investigating Officer that a neighbor of the deceased used to talk to the wife of the deceased and that person has caused the incident. The person from whom the deceased's wife used to talk has not been named in this information recorded in the case diary. 5. Upon this information, the call detail records of the deceased were taken out from which it came to light that there were numerous conversions with the co-accused person Sandeep Kumar. The police claim to have got an information from a mukhbir on 12.06.2024 regarding movement of co-accused Sandeep Kumar. When he was arrested on the basis of this information, the applicant, who is nana of Sandeep Kumar, was accompanying him. Both the accused persons confessed their involvement in commission of the offence and a brick was recovered from an open place on the pointing out of the accused persons. They had told that they had thrown away the knife in a drain, which has been recovered by the forensic team. A shirt and a gamcha was recovered from the house of the applicant on his pointing out. 6. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is 70 years old person having no criminal history and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. 7. The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith the material collected during investigation and a copy of the charge sheet dated 30.07.2024. A copy of the custodial statement of co- accused Sandeep Kumar has been annexed with the counter affidavit wherein he stated that the deceased was used to talk to the wife of Sandeep Kumar and for this reason, he along with the applicant killed the deceased. He stated that the applicant had caught hold of hands and legs of the deceased and the co- accused had severed his head with a knife. 8. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that Section 30 of the Evidence Act provides that when more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession. 9. The confession referred to in Section 30 of the Evidence Act is a confession which is admissible in evidence. When statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded, the co- accused was in custody. It has been recorded by the Investigating Officer and when a statement is recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is not signed by the person who has made the statement. This confession can at the most be used to corroborate the other evidences and it cannot be by itself be used as a confession, which may lead to conviction. 10. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the applicant was taken into custody merely because he was accompanying the co-accused Sandeep thereafter he has been implicated on the basis of custodial confession; that the applicant is a 70 years old person having no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 12.06.2024 and the investigation stands concluded on 30.07.2024, 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. 11. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed. 12. Let the applicant-Shiv Prasad Kori be released on bail in the aforementioned 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. 13. The learned counsel for the informant requested that the trial may be expedited. 14. As the applicant is in custody and expeditious trial is his fundamental right, it is directed that the trial court shall proceed with the trial expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties. . [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] Order Date :- 19.3.2025 Pradeep/- Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench