Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84055 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6944 of 2025 Applicant :- Triloki Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Keshari Nath Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Keshari Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on records. 3. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Triloki, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 218 of 2024, under Sections 103(2), 331(6), 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station Chhajlet, District Moradabad. 4. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 08.10.2024 by Kallu Singh against Baby alleging therein that on 07.10.2024 in the evening his nephew Raju @ Rajveer had returned to the village from the house of his sister. His house is adjacent to the house of the informant. In the night of 07/08.10.2024 at about 11:15 pm Raju and his wife Baby had a fight and after shouts they reached there and intervened and then returned back. Raju @ Rajveer had received injuries and died. A report be lodged and action be taken. 5. The postmortem examination of the deceased Rajveer @ Raju was conducted in which the doctor found a ligature mark on his body and amongst the internal examination found the hyoid bone to be fractured and hematoma present in trachea. The cause of death was opined as asphyxia due to antemortem strangulation. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is not named in the first information report. It is submitted that the implication of the applicant has surfaced in the present matter during investigation. It is further submitted that the name of the applicant has come for the first time in the present matter in the second statement of the first informant recorded after 08 days of the incident and statements of witnesses Jaiveer Singh and Bhupendra Kumar. It is submitted that naming of the applicant in the statement of Kumari Kanak the daughter of the deceased is on account of prompting. It is submitted that the applicant has no concern with the present matter. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 28 and is in jail since 18.10.2024. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that Kumari Kanak the daughter of the deceased has specifically named the applicant and stated that her mother and the applicant had strangulated the deceased after which the applicant went away and her mother went off to sleep. It is submitted that the first informant has also named the applicant on the basis of version given by Kumari Kanak. It is submitted that thus there is an eye-witness of the incident who has named the applicant and thus the prayer for bail be rejected. 8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named by Kumari Kanak the daughter of the deceased and co-accused Baby who has been assigned the role of strangulating the deceased. The medical examination corroborates with the version as given by Kumari Kanak. No ground for bail exists. 9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. 10. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad