Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33520 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8143 of 2025 Applicant :- Upendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shatruhan Yadav, learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.479 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 61(2)A B.N.S., Police Station Khatauli, District Muzaffar Nagar during pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, FIR of the present case was lodged by the deceased himself but nobody was named in the FIR. He further submits, even deceased in his statement recorded during investigation did not disclose the name of anyone. 4. He further submits, for the first time name of applicant was surfaced through the statement of one Preetam and from his statement it reflects, according to him, brother of co-accused Lukka informed him that applicant was also involved in the present matter. 5. He further submits, except the statement of co-accused and confessional statement of the applicant, it appears there is no cogent evidence against the applicant on record. 6. He further submits, applicant is however having criminal history of one another case but that case was of the year 2007 and in that case applicant is on bail. He further submits, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 18.12.2024. 7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted, FIR of the present case was lodged by the deceased himself and one Aditya was witness of the incident but he could not dispute the fact that neither deceased nor eye witness could disclose the name of applicant. 8. Learned AGA further submitted, during investigation location of the mobile phone of the applicant was found near the place of incident and on the pointing out of the applicant country made pistol used in the crime was also recovered but he fairly conceded till date the alleged country made pistol could not be connected with the instant matter. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 10. However, it appears, initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Section 109 B.N.S. by the deceased and after his death case was converted under Section 103 B.N.S. but it reflects, deceased neither in the FIR nor in the statement recorded during investigation disclosed the name of any accused. Further, record also suggests that one Aditya was eye witness but he also did not disclose the name of anyone. 11. Further, from the record, it reflects, name of applicant was surfaced in the present matter through the statement of Ex-village Pradhan namely Preetam but it appears, his statement appears to be based on hearsay evidence. Further, however, as per prosecution at the time of incident location of the mobile phone of the applicant was found near the place of incident and on his pointing out one country made pistol was recovered but in view of this Court on the basis of these two circumstances without any other corroborative piece of evidence at this stage, it cannot be said that applicant involved in the present crime. 12. Further, from the entire material available on record it reflects, except the statement of co-accused and confessional statement of the applicant there is no cogent evidence against the applicant on record. 13. Further, however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of one another case of Section 392 IPC but that case was of the year 2007. 14. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 18.12.2024. 15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 16. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 17. Let the applicant - Upendra 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. 18. 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. 19. 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 :- 7.3.2025 AK Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad