Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74620 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7866 of 2025 Applicant :- Rohit Ker Ketta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Rohit Ker Ketta, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 371 of 2021, under Sections 302, 201, 404, 34 I.P.C. registered at P.S. Sector-24, District Gautam Budh Nagar. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that although the applicant is named in the F.I.R. lodged by Smt. Salini Hembram wife of the deceased/Raj Kujoor along with five other accused persons but the naming of the applicant is on basis of suspicion only. It is argued that there is no eye witness to the incident and only evidence relied by the prosecution against the applicant is the confessional statements of accused persons to the police including the applicant. It is argued that although the police has shown recovery of an artificial ring on the pointing out of the applicant but the same has not been identified as per law and it is only an effort to falsely implicate the applicant. It is submitted that co- accused Raj Gwala @ Jitendra Yadav has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 28.03.2022 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 10591 of 2022 (Raj Gwala @ Jitendra Yadav Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the order has been produced before the Court which is taken on record. It is submitted that the applicant has no other criminal antecedents as stated in para-20 of the affidavit and is in jail since 16.09.2021. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the the fact that the said co-accused Raj Gwala @ Jitendra Yadav has been granted bail. 6. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that there is no independent eye witness to the murder. Naming of the applicant in the F.I.R. is on the basis of suspicion only and there is no credible evidence against him. Co- accused Raj Gwala @ Jitendra Yadav has been granted bail by this Court. 7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 8. Let the applicant- Rohit Ker Ketta, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties (out of which one surety should be the family member of the applicant and the other should be a local person) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant. 9. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. 10. The bail application is allowed. 11. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad