HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2943 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and Sri Sanandan Kumar Misra, learned Counsel for the complainant. 2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.268 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 238 of BNS, Police Station Amethi, District Amethi. 3. In terms of the FIR, allegations were levelled that when the informant came home on 28.12.2024, he saw the wife lying dead and when he started shouting, an information was given that the applicant, who is a police personnel, had killed the wife of the informant. It was also statd that three days ago, the wife of the informant had informed that there was a fight in between her and the applicant. It was also stated that her mobile was missing in terms of the FIR so registered. The postmortem report was conducted on the body of the deceased wherein as many as 10 marks were seen on the body of the deceased, which included ligature mark on the neck, right ear and chin; contusion on left shoulder and lacerated wound on left index and middle finger. The cause of death as per the postmortem report was ante mortem hanging. Subsequently, when the applicant preferred bail application before the trial court, the bail application was rejected by the trial court in terms of the order, which is on record. It was observed at the instance of the argument of the District Government Counsel that the nature of marks do not suggest the cause of death as ante Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Suresh Chandra Srivastava, Brijesh Kumar Yadav, Umesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Bina Kumari Bajpai, Rajeev Mishra, Sanandan Kumar Misra Ravi Kumar .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) mortem hanging and appears to be a case of murder. The trial court rejected the bail application. 4. In the light of the aforesaid material, when the bail application was argued before this Court, directions were issued for recording the statement of the informant during trial, which has been done. A copy of the statement and cross-examination has been produced across the bar, which is taken on record. 5. In the light of the said material, the submission of the Counsel for the applicant is that there are no eyewitness to the incident. The applicant was linked solely based upon the apprehension and even in the statement of the informant recorded during trial, he has not stated that he had seen the occurrence. The statement of the informant given during cross- examination in any way does not implicate the applicant with the offence under Section 103(1) of BNS. 6. The Counsel for the informant on the other hand strongly opposes the bail prayer by arguing that the applicant is a police personnel and was having affair with the wife of the informant and account of the dispute, the informant was made to sit at the police station for two days and was harassed and subsequently, on account of media pressure, the FIR in question was lodged. He further argues that even the trial court in its order has made an observation that the nature of the injuries do not indicate as a simple death of asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging and prima faice, it is a case of murder. He further argues that considering the gravity of the allegations against the police personnel, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 7. Learned A.G.A. also vehemently opposed the bail prayer. 8. It is not denied by either of the parties that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and considering the submissions made at the bar, prima facie, the postmortem report suggests the cause of death ante mortem hanging and whether the same is ante mortem hanging or not is to be seen at the time of trial. The submission of the informant has been recorded and his cross-examination has also been concluded, thus, at this stage, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant if enlarged on bail, BAIL No. 2943 of 2025 2 would in any way adversely affect the trial. Considering these circumstances, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant Ravi Kumar be released on bail in the abovesaid first information report number on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of the like amount each 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 26, 2025 akverma BAIL No. 2943 of 2025 3 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench