HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9378 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State; Shri Rishabh Chauhan, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. 2. The applicants seek enlargement on bail in FIR No.68 of 2025, under Section 103(1), 238, 3(5) of BNS, P.S. Kotwali Haidergarh, District Barabanki. 3. FIR in question was lodged on 02.03.2025 at about 22:52 hours alleging that the father of the informant had given certain amount of money on loan which was being refused by the three accused named in the FIR and threats were also issued to the father to eliminate him and on 27.02.2025 at about 1 PM when the father of the informant had gone to the shop of the accused for return of the money, he did not come back for which a missing person report was lodged. Subsequently, body of the father of the informant was found in the Sharda Canal and information was given to the police authorities and thereafter, inquest report was prepared. It was stated that three accused named in the FIR including the applicant were involved in the murder of the father so that she did not return the money which was taken on loan and thereafter, the body was thrown in the Sharda Canal. 4. In the light of the said, submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that admittedly the missing person report was lodged on 27.02.2025, thereafter, the body was found on 02.03.2025 and the inquest was done on Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd. Ghayasuddin Khan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Atul Krishna, Praveen Kumar Yadav, Rishabh Chauhan Rahul Kumar And Another .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) the same day at 05:25 PM in which the informant was also present; no such apprehension was expressed at that time. Subsequently, the FIR was lodged on the allegations as extracted above. It is further argued by counsel for the applicants that there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and subsequently, based upon the testimony of three witnesses who had supported the theory of last seen, the applicants were linked with the offence in question. He draws my attention to the said statement which has been recorded after about 1 & 1/2 months to suggest that on 27.02.2025 he had seen the deceased with the applicants. It is, thus, argued that the applicants are being falsely implicated for the offence. 5. Shri Rishabh Chauhan, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State strongly opposed the bail application by arguing that the nature of injuries reflected in the postmortem clearly demonstrates the brutality of the offence in which the deceased was attacked on his head and thereafter, thrown in the river. Two lacerated wounds are also shown on the head skull region and a contusion was also seen on the neck. It is further argued that the motorcycle on which the deceased was going was thrown and the same was recovered at the instance and pointing out of the applicant as is evident from the recovery memo, thus, the material to implicate the applicants with the offence in question is substantial, and considering the gravity, the bail application should be rejected. 6. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicants states that the alleged recovery of motorcycle was not done in the presence of any independent witness. He further argues that even in the missing person report or otherwise, there was no mention of any motorcycle and thus, the said document of recovery not done in accordance with the provisions of Evidence Act have no evidentiary value. 7. Considering the submissions made at the Bar and recorded above, prima- facie, the applicants were linked with the offence in question on the motive of some money having been advanced to them; there are no eyewitnesses to the incident; the inquest report in which the informant were present does not indicate any suspicion expressed by the Panch and recovery from the applicants is prima-facie in accordance with law. Considering the material to link the applicants prima-facie being weak and the allegations being general BAIL No. 9378 of 2025 2 against all the three co-accused, the applicants who are in custody since 02.03.2025 and have no criminal antecedents are entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed. 8. Let the applicants Rahul Kumar and Poornmasi be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on their furnishing a personal bond each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions: (a) The applicants shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings; (b) The applicants shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which they are accused or suspected of the commission; and (c) The applicants 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. December 2, 2025 nishant BAIL No. 9378 of 2025 3 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench