Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:80856 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7152 of 2025 Applicant :- Ram Prakash Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Leena Srivastava,Mahendra Pal Singh Gaur Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri M.P.Singh Gaur, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA, for the State. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 494 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 140(1) and 238 BNS, Police Station Sahaswan, District Badaun during pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially FIR of the present case was lodged with regard to missing of the brother of the informant but when on the same day, i.e., 6.11.2024 his dead body was recovered then case was converted under Section 103(1) BNS. 4. He further submits that on the same day, i.e., 6.11.2024 informant moved an application and in that application he raised suspicion against the applicant and thereafter applicant has been made accused in the present matter along with his wife. 5. He further submits that as per informant wife of the applicant was having extra marital affair with the deceased and, therefore, she along with her husband, i.e., applicant committed his murder but entire allegations levelled against the applicant is totally false. 6. He further submits that as per prosecution, two witnesses, namely, Puttan and Nasruddin in their statements stated that they witnessed the applicant along with the deceased on the motorcycle but their statements were recorded on 2.1.2025, i.e., after more than two months and therefore, no reliance can be placed on the basis of such evidence of last seen. 7. He further submits that as per prosecution when applicant was arrested then on his pointing out one 'mafler' used in the crime was recovered but on the basis of such recovery it cannot be said that applicant involved in the present crime. 8. He further submits that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and prosecution failed to connect the applicant with the instant case as there is no cogent evidence is available against him on record. 9. He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 07.11.2024, i.e., for the last more than six months. 10. Per contra, learned AGA, however, oppose the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and it reflects that during investigation applicant has been made accused on the basis of suspicion raised by informant. 13. Further, however, two witnesses, namely, Puttan and Nasruddin tried to give evidence of last seen against the applicant but considering the fact that their statements were recorded after two months, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that evidence of last seen prima facie appears to be doubtful cannot be ruled out. 14. Further, however, as per prosecution on the pointing out of the applicant one 'muflar' which was used in the crime, was also recovered but prima facie alleged recovery of 'mufler appears to be doubtful and merely on the basis of such recovery at this stage it cannot be said that applicant committed the murder of the deceased. 15. Further, except the above evidence of last seen, there is no other cogent evidence against the applicant on record. 16. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 7.11.2024, i.e., for the last more than 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-Ram Prakash 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 :- 15.5.2025 SKM Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad