Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78635 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10048 of 2025 Applicant :- Mahesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandan Yadav,Naman Navin Singh,Vimlendu Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Vinod Kumar Tirpathi,G.A.,Shikhar Awasthi Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vinod Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 252 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 351(3) BNS, Police Station- Shergarh, District- Mathura, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was not named in the FIR but after three weeks, when the statements of some eye-witnesses were recorded then they disclosed the name of the applicant and they stated that applicant also involved in opening fire upon the deceased along with other named accused persons but their statements do not appear to be convincing. 4. He further submitted that informant of the case is also one of the eye-witness but he neither disclosed the name of the applicant in the FIR nor in his statement recorded during investigation. He further submitted that therefore, statements of alleged eye- witnesses, which were recorded after three weeks, cannot be relied at this stage. 5. He further submitted that applicant and informant side were highly inimical with each other and it appears, due to enmity, after three weeks, applicant has been roped in the present matter along with others. 6. He further submitted that however, apart form 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 2510.2024 i.e. for last more than six months. 7. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it is a day-light brutal murder and number of eye-witnesses categorically disclosed the name of the applicant and they stated that applicant also involved in opening the fire upon the deceased along with other accused persons but could not dispute the fact that statements of these witnesses were recorded after more than three weeks. 8. They further could not dispute the fact that even informant of the case is also one of the eye-witness but he did not disclose the name of the applicant either in the FIR or in his statement recorded during investigation. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant and informant side were highly inimical with each other. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 10. However, from the statements of some eye-witnesses recorded during investigation, it reflects, applicant along with other accused persons also opened fire but their statements were recorded after more than three weeks and considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that no reliance can be placed on such belated statements, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage. 11. Further, informant of the case also appears to be eye-witness but neither in the FIR nor in his statement recorded during investigation, he even disclosed the name of the applicant. 12. Further, enmity between both the parties is admitted and if due to enmity an accused can commit offence then due to that enmity, he can also be falsely implicated as enmity is double edged weapon, which cuts both the sides. 13. Further, however, apart form the present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application and that case relates to minor offence and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 2510.2024 i.e. for last more than six months. 14. Further, law is settled, unless proven guilty, an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application of an accused should not be dismissed for punitive purpose. 15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 16. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 17. Let the applicant- Mahesh 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. 18. 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. 19. 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 :- 13.5.2025 KK Patel Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad