HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9866 of 2024 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record. 2. This is second application of the accused-applicant seeking bail in FIR/Case Crime No.0036 of 2022 under sections 302, 201, 34 IPC, P.S. Para, District Lucknow. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 19.10.2022 mainly on the ground that the applicant had allegedly committed the offence while he was on bail. 3. In the light of the said, the counsel for the applicant argues that in terms of the FIR, allegations were levelled that the brother of the informant was found dead and had died on account of gun shot injury in the stomach. No one was named in the FIR. It was stated that the deceased had gone with one co-accused Manish Gautam for attending a birth day party. It was also stated that one Akash Gautam had called him on telephone. Subsequently, the applicant was linked with the offence in question on the basis of the statement of the co-accused and the recovery of the weapon which is country made pistol. 4. In the light of the said, the counsel for the applicant argues that in the examination of PW-1, he specifically stated that he was not an eye Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Subhash Bisaria, Gaurav Tripathi, Hemant Kumar Pandey, Osama Syed, Riyaz Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Santosh Rajpoot .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko .....Opposite Party(s) witness to the incident. He further argues that the recovery of weapon, allegedly shown, is not in the presence of any independent witnesses. Thus, the evidence to link the applicant with the offence in question is prima-facie weak. The charge-sheet on record indicates that apart from PW-1, who is the informant, other witnesses are formal witnesses except one Akash Gautam who had allegedly called the deceased. The applicant is in custody since 01.02.2022 having criminal history of four cases, which have been duly explained in which he is on bail. 5. Considering the material to link the applicant being the confessional statement and the recovery which is not in the presence of any independent witnesses coupled with the fact that the main witness PW-1 has already been examined and there appears to be no material to suggest that the applicant if enlarged on bail, can adversely affect the trial, as such, the applicant having suffered pretrial detention of more than three and half years, is entitled for the bail. Thus the bail application is allowed. 6. Let the applicant Santosh Rajpoot 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 6, 2025 VNP/- BAIL No. 9866 of 2024 2 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench