Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32927 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7908 of 2025 Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Pasi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Bharti,Kamlesh Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Kamlesh Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kunwar Tejendra Bahadur, learned AGA, for the State. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.287 of 2024, under Sections 103(1) and 238 BNS, Police Station Karari, District Kaushambi during pendency of the trial. 3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 5.11.2024 against the applicant and others and according to the FIR on 04.11.2024 at about 9.30 PM in the late evening when son of the informant did not return then on search next day his dead body was found in a well. It is further mentioned in the FIR that son of the informant was along with applicant and he along with others committed his murder. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that admittedly informant of the case is not the eye witness of the incident and it appears that on suspicion he disclosed the name of the applicant in the FIR. 5. He further submits that however, during investigation when Investigating Officer recorded the statement of one Indrajeet on 7.11.2024, i.e., after two days then he started claiming himself to be an eye witness of the incident and stated that on 4.11.2024 at about 8.00 PM in the evening some dispute arose between deceased, applicant and co-accused Sudhanshu and thereafter they threatened him and subsequently when they went behind him then he followed them and saw applicant and co-accused Sudhanshu were making assault upon the deceased and during incident applicant made assault upon the head of the deceased but his statement does not appear to be convincing. 6. It is further submitted that as informant is Village Pradhan, therefore, under his pressure witness Indrajeet stated against the applicant and actually nobody could see the real incident. 7. It is further submitted that except Indrajeet there is neither any other eye witness nor there is any evidence against the applicant on record. 8. He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 6.11.2024. 9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant is named in the FIR and witness Indrajeet is the eye witness of the incident and there is no reason to disbelieve his statement at this stage, therefore, considering the statement of eye witness Indrajeet, applicant should not be released on bail. 10. Learned AGA also pointed out that apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of one another case but he fairly conceded, that case relates to minor offence. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. However, applicant is named in the FIR but it appears that on the basis of suspicion he has been made accused in the FIR of the present case. 13. Further, however, record suggests that witness Indrajeet claimed himself to be an eye witness of the incident and he stated against the applicant but considering the statement of the witness Indrajeet, the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant that his statement does not appear to be convincing, cannot be ruled out at this stage. 14. Further, except the statement of witness Indrajeet, it appears that there is no other evidence against the applicant on record. 15. Further, however, it appears that apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case but that case relates to minor offence and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 6.11.2024. 16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 18. Let the applicant-Sandeep Kumar Pasi 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. 19. 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. 20. 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 :- 6.3.2025 SKM Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad