Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30156 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7470 of 2025 Applicant :- Surajpal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vijay Prakash Singh Kushwaha Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Sri Vijay Prakash Singh Kushwaha, learned Advocate apprised the Court that yesterday he filed his power on behalf of the informant in the Registry of this Court, therefore, his name is not shown in the cause list. However, he submits, he is ready to argue the case. 2. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vijay Prakash Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Shatruhan Yadav, learned AGA for the State. 3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 456 of 2024, under Sections 103(1) B.N.S. and Section 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Bhogaon, District Mainpuri during pendency of the trial. 4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 19.11.2024 against unknown persons with regard to murder of the father of the informant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant is the real elder brother of the deceased i.e. Tau of the informant and during investigation through the second statement of the informant, he has been made accused in the present matter. He further submits, even from the second statement of the informant it reflects, merely on the basis of suspicion he implicated the applicant in the present matter. 6. He further submits, however, very casually in his second statement informant stated that he witnessed everything but even from this statement it could not be reflected, he witnessed the incident of murder and if he would have witnessed the incident then he would have disclosed the name of the applicant in the FIR and in his first statement. 7. He next submits, however, as per prosecution, when applicant was arrested then from his possession one country made pistol was recovered but till date alleged country made pistol could not be connected with the instant crime. 8. He further submits, except the second statement of the informant and recovery of country made pistol, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record. 9. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 09.12.2024. 10. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is the real elder brother of the deceased and he was the real culprit, who committed his murder and from the second statement of the informant this fact is evident, in which, he stated that he witnessed the everything and from his possession also one country made pistol was recovered but they could not dispute informant neither in the FIR nor his first statement recorded during investigation informant stated against applicant. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. FIR of the present case was lodged against unknown persons but when the second statement of the informant was recorded on 30.11.2024 then he disclosed the name of applicant and stated that applicant was the person who committed the murder of his father. 13. However, in the second statement informant stated that he witnessed everything but this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that even from his statement it could not be reflected, he was eye witness of the incident. 14. Further, if informant was the eye witness and he witnessed that applicant while he was committing the murder of his father then why he did not disclose his name in the FIR and in his first statement. 15. Further, however, apart from the second statement of the informant as per prosecution when applicant was arrested then from his possession one country made pistol was recovered which was used in the crime but till date alleged pistol could not be connected along with the present matter. 16. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 09.12.2024. 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 - Surajpal 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 :- 4.3.2025 AK Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad