Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134757 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5905 of 2025 Applicant :- Neha Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thr. Its Secretary Home Governemnt Of U.P. At Lkw Counsel for Applicant :- Bharat Singh,Shailesh Singh Yadav,Shashee Devi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Harishchandra Yadav Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Puneet Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State Respondent, Sri H. C. Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 358 of 2024, under Sections 61(2) and 103(1) BNS, Police Station Gunnaur, District Sambhal, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and applicant was not named in the FIR but during the course of investigation the name of the applicant was surfaced. He further submitted that however, as per allegation, applicant was having conversation with other co-accused but merely on the basis of above evidence, at this stage, it cannot be said that applicant involved in present crime. He further submitted that if applicant had conversation with the co-accused then this fact cannot be incriminating circumstance against the applicant. He further submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and prosecution misrably failed to connect the applicant with instant crime as there is no cogent and admissible evidence against the applicant on record. It is further submitted that on the similar footing the co-accused Raju has been granted bail by the Court vide order dated 17.05.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13890 of 2025, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and she is in jail in the present matter since 16.12.2024. 4. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the applicant opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 6. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and applicant was not named in the FIR but during the course of investigation the name of applicant was surfaced, however, apart from the confessional statement of the applicant, there is no other credible evidence against the applicant as such, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that even if applicant had number of conversations with co-accused then merely on this basis, it cannot be said that she involved in the instant crime. 7. Further, even merely on the basis of CDR, at this stage, it cannot be said that applicant was involved in the commission of murder of the deceased along with other. Further, except above evidence, there is no other cogent evidence against the applicant on record. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and she is in jail in the present matter since 16.12.2024. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant, Neha, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless her personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 10. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant. 11. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 8.8.2025 pks Digitally signed by :- PAWAN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad