Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75173 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9587 of 2025 Applicant :- Sarvesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Pandey,Shardendu Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Arvind Singh Sengar,G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Counter affidavit filed by informant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Shardendu Mishra and Sri Rajeev Kumar Pandey, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Arvind Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Manav Chaurasia, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 173 of 2024, under Section 103(1) BNS, Police Station- Bharatkoop, District- Chitrakoot, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 4. Learned counsels for the applicant submitted that however, as per allegation, on 20.11.2024 at about 8:00 p.m. in the night applicant has taken the brother of the informant and subsequently his dead body was found but entire allegation levelled against the applicant is totally false. 5. They further submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged after more than 24 hours and this fact clearly suggests that after 24 hours a false story has been cooked up by the informant and thereafter FIR of the present case was lodged. 6. They further submitted that during investigation, when statements of informant and other witnesses were recorded then they however, tried to elaborate the evidence of last seen against the applicant but there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and version of the FIR. They further submitted that from their statements it reflects, applicant was along with the deceased on 20.11.2024 at about 6:30 p.m. in the evening, therefore, evidence of last seen does not appear to be convincing. 7. They further submitted that except the evidence of last seen and motive that applicant was having illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased, there is no other cogent evidence against the applicant on record. They further submitted that motive is double edged weapon, which cuts both the sides. 8. They further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 23.11.2024 i.e. for last almost six months. 9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant was having illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased and before incident, he had number of conversation with her, therefore, there was motive to commit the instant crime but could not dispute the fact that except motive and evidence of last seen, there is no other cogent evidence against the applicant and there are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and version of the FIR, as far as evidence of last seen is concerned. They further could not dispute the fact that FIR was lodged after more than 24 hours. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. However, as per allegation, applicant committed the murder of the deceased as he was having illicit relationship with his wife and there is also evidence that he had number of conversation with her but it is a case of circumstantial evidence and it reflects, only evidence against the applicant is the evidence of last seen but considering the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation and version of FIR, evidence of last seen, prima facie, appears to be doubtful. 12. Further, there is delay of 24 hours in lodging the FIR and this fact again casts serious doubt on the prosecution case. 13. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 23.11.2024 i.e. for last almost six months. 14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 16. Let the applicant- Sarvesh Yadav 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. 17. 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. 18. 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 :- 8.5.2025 KK Patel Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad