Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:81878 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6710 of 2025 Applicant :- Salman Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dr. Arun Srivastav,Vishal Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Suresh Singh Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. None appeared on behalf of the informant even in the revised call. 2. Heard Dr. Arun Srivatava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA-I, for the State. 3. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.388 of 2024, under Section 103(1) BNS, Police Station Barkhera, District Pilibhit during pendency of the trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and applicant was not named in the FIR and FIR of the present case was lodged against co-accused Gasid but during investigation on the basis of statement of witnesses Mustafa Ali and Yusuf, he has been made accused in the present matter. 5. He further submits that both the above witnesses tried to provide evidence of last seen but even considering their statements and the post mortem report of the deceased it reflects that there is no proximity of time between alleged time of last seen and estimated time of death of the deceased . 6. He further submits that even from the statements of the above witnesses it could not be reflected that applicant was inimical with the deceased rather it reflects that he was along with the deceased to make complaint against co-accused Gasid, who duped the deceased. 7. He further submits that however, as per prosecution when applicant was arrested then on his pointing out recovery of knife was also made but said recovery is false and planted one and even on the basis of such recovery it cannot be said that applicant involved in the commission of alleged crime. 8. He next submits that there is absolutely no cogent evidence on record which can connect the applicant in the instant matter. 9. He further submits that however, apart from the present case applicant is also having criminal history of one another case but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application. 10. He further submits that in the present matter applicant is in jail since 22.11.2024, i.e., for almost six months. 11. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 13. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and during investigation applicant has been made accused in the present matter through the statements of two witnesses as they stated that applicant was last seen along with the deceased on 18.11.2024, i.e., about a day before the murder of the deceased but from the perusal of their statements recorded during investigation complicity of the applicant could not be revealed. Further, even this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no proximity in the alleged time of last seen and estimated time of death of the deceased disclosed in the post mortem report. 14. Further, however, as per prosecution apart from the above evidence of last seen on the pointing out of the applicant knife used in the crime was also recovered but merely on the basis of such recovery at this stage prima facie it cannot be said that applicant is the person, who also involved in the alleged incident. 15. Further, however, that apart from the present case applicant is also having criminal history of one another case but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application. 16. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 22.11.2024, i..e, for almost six months. 17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above,in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 19. Let the applicant-Salman 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 his 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 him 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. 20. 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. 21. 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 :- 16.5.2025 SKM Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad