HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3535 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record. 2. The accused-applicant seeks bail in FIR/Case Crime No.318 of 2024 under section 103(1) and 238(2) BNS, P.S. Jankipuram, District Lucknow. 3. In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that the son of the informant was missing for which a missing person report was lodged on 09.10.2024 and subsequently, an information was received that a body was lying under a bridge and when the informant went, it was identified as the body of the son of the deceased. It was further stated that the son of the informant was having an affair with a twenty year old girl relating to the applicant, because of which the accused had called him and committed the offence in question. It was also stated that two of the persons living nearby, had heard the cry of the deceased while he was being killed by the applicant allegedly. 4. In the light of the said allegation, the applicant was apprehended for the offence in question. The prosecution has relied upon the confessional statement of the applicant as well as the recovery of the cloth and an iron rod, at the instance and pointing out of the applicant to link the applicant with the offence in question. 5. Learned AGA points out that the CCTv Footage were also analysed to press the charges against the applicant. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Harpreet Singh, Mo.Jeeshan Ali Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ashid Ali, Mohammad Kashif Mohd. Fazil .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P.Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko .....Opposite Party(s) 6. To counter the said submissions, the counsel for the applicant draws my attention to the statement of the witnesses, referred to in the FIR wherein they had stated that they had heard the cry, however, they could not see the entire incident. They are not the eye witness to the incident. The recovery of a cloth and the statement of the applicant that they had killed the deceased by throttling, is not fortified by the postmortem report, which does not indicate the mark of throttling on the body. The recovery of the iron rod, is not in the presence of independent witnesses. The one of the prosecution witness has been examined and has not supported the allegation that the deceased was having an affair with the relative of the applicant, as alleged in the FIR. The applicant has no criminal history and is in custody since 11.10.2024. 7. Considering the materials referred above and analysed, there being no direct evidence to link the applicant and the evidence to link is subject to trial, the applicant who has no criminal history and is in custody since 11.10.2024 is entitled to bail. Thus the bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant Mohd. Fazil be released on bail in aforesaid FIR/Case Crime Number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: (a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings; (b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and (c) 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. November 13, 2025 VNP/- BAIL No. 3535 of 2025 2 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench