HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9118 of 2024 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State, Shri Pawan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant. and perused the record. 2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No. 112 of 2024, under Sections 302, 394, 411 IPC, P.S. Ikauna, District Shrawasti. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that in terms of FIR it was alleged that father of informant was working as home guard and on 15.4.2024 as he did not return information was received that the applicant was roaming near about father of the informant on motorcycle and subsequently after administering liquor he was taken to a particular place. As the body was found the next date, apprehension was expressed that the applicant had committed the offence with the use of brick. Post mortem report indicate the cause of death as ante mortem head injuries. The injuries indicated on the body of the deceased are crushed injury on the right side of the face, close fracture on the right side of nasal bone and lacerated wound above right ear. In the light of the said allegations the submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the nature of injuries reflected in the post mortem report cannot be attributed to injury by brick alone. He further argued that only an apprehension was expressed based upon last seen theory as informed to the informant and Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashish Raman Mishra, Ashok Kumar Mishra, Hari Bux Singh, Ravi Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Pawan Kumar Mishra Rajat Shukla .....Applicant(s) The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) the applicant have been linked with the offence solely based upon the confessional statement. The recovery of brick and alleged blood stained clothes were not made in the presence of independent witness. 4. Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as the learned counsel for the informant draws my attention to the recovery which was affected at the pointing out of the applicant to argue that it was the applicant who had committed the offence in question. 5. Considering the submission made at the bar prima facie the applicant was linked with the offence based on last seen theory and the alleged recovery is not made in the presence of independent witness. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, can adversely affect the trial. Considering the nature of evidence against the applicant, however, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the applicant who is in jail since 17.4.2024 and has no criminal history is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed. 6. Let the applicant Rajat Shukla be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of 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. 7. However the trial shall be expedited. In the event of the applicant not cooperating with the trial it would be open for the informant to move an bail cancellation application. October 31, 2025 J. K. Dinkar BAIL No. 9118 of 2024 2 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench