Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:52436 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10924 of 2025 Applicant :- Rajpal And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shobh Nath Pal,Vimal Kumar Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Shobhnath Pal, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA, for the State. 2. At the very outset learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not want to press the bail application on behalf of applicant no.1-Rajpal, therefore, his bail application may be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh at subsequent stage. 3. Learned AGA is having no objection. 4. In view of the above, the bail application filed on behalf of applicant no.1 is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed. 5. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant no.2 and 3 on bail in Case Crime No. 239 of 2024, under Sections 147,149,307 and 302 IPC, Police Station Dataganj, District Budaun, during pendency of the trial. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that as far as case of applicant nos. 2 and 3 are concerned on the basis of general and omnibus allegations, they have been made accused in the present matter along with as many as eight others including co-accused Munendra and Rajan and except the fact that as per prosecution from the possession of applicant nos.2 and 3 one bloodstained piece of cot was recovered, their case is exactly at par with co- accused Munendra and Rajan and they have been released on bail by this Court and bail order of co-accused Munendra has been annexed along with the instant bail application. He produced the bail order of co-accused Rajan during the course of argument which is taken on record and marked as "A". 7. He further submits that from the perusal of recovery memo it reflects that entire recovery is false and planted one and no reliance can be placed on such version. 8. He further submits that even merely on the basis of such recovery it cannot be said that applicants involved in commission of present crime. 9. He further submits that prima facie considering number of accused persons, even present case appears to be a case of over implication. 10. He further submits that applicant nos.2 and 3 are not having any previous criminal history and they are in jail in the present matter since 9.7.2024, i.e., for the last nine months. 11. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that as from the possession of applicant nos.2 and 3 bloodstained piece of cot was also recovered, therefore, their case is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Rajan and Munendra, who have released on bail. They however could not dispute the fact that only general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the accused and till date the alleged recovered bloodstained cot could not be connected with the instant crime although charge sheet has been submitted in the matter. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 13. However, as per allegation applicant nos.2 and 3 along with eight others including co-accused Munendra and Rajan made assault and due to assault made by them one person died and one person sustained injuries but co-accused Munendra and Rajan have been released on bail and as far as allegation of assault is concerned, case of applicants is at par with them. 15. Further, however, as per prosecution when applicants were arrested then from their possession one piece of bloodstained cot was recovered but from the perusal of the recovery memo, which was produced by the learned AGA during the course of argument, it reflects that the manner in which recovery was made does not appear to be convincing. Further, it appears till date the alleged recovered bloodstained piece of cot could not be connected with the instant crime. However, after investigation charge sheet has been submitted in the present matter. 16. Further, applicant nos. 2 and 3 are not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter they are in jail since 9.7.2024, i.e., for the last more than nine months. 17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant nos.2 and 3 are 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 nos.2 and 3-Mahesh and Viresh @ Vijaypal 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 no.2 and 3 shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless their personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant nos.2 and 3 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 nos.2 and 3 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 nos.2 and 3. 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 :- 10.4.2025 SKM Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad