Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73251 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11233 of 2025 Applicant :- Moin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Raj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Counter affidavit filed by State is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Brij Raj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent. 3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 408 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 61(2) BNS, Police Station- Etmaddaula, District- Agra, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that nobody was named in the FIR and during investigation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter on the basis of statement of co- accused Nazim. 5. He further submitted that however, as per allegation, apart from the statement of co-accused and confessional statement of applicant, there is also electronic evidence against the applicant and co-accused Tanveer and according to CCTV footage, applicant and co-accused Tanveer were identified through CCTV footage and from the CCTV footage, it appears, they were dragging the deceased but co-accused Tanveer has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 08.04.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 11400 of 2025 and on facts, case of applicant is exactly at par with him. 6. He further submitted that except the footage of CCTV, there is no cogent evidence against the applicant and genuineness of CCTV footage can only be ascertained during trial by the trial court. 7. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 22.10.2024 i.e. for last more than six months. 8. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the payer for bail and submitted that from the bail granting order of co-accused Tanveer, it reflects, by concealing material facts, he obtained bail and during disposal of his bail application, this fact could not be placed before this Court that there is also CCTV footage of the incident, in which, he along with applicant was visible and according to CCTV footage, he and applicant were dragging the deceased and, therefore, no benefit can be extended to the applicant on the basis of bail granting order of co-accused. He further submitted that at this stage, CCTV footage cannot be disbelieved and from its perusal, complexity of the applicant is quite apparent and therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, he should not be released on bail. 9. I have heard both the parties and perused any record of the case. 10. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and it reflects, during investigation, applicant and others have been made accused. Record also suggests that during investigation, I.O. procured CCTV footage of the incident and from perusal of the same, it reflects, applicant and co-accused Tanveer were dragging the deceased and it appears, thereafter they committed his murder. 11. Further, however, co-accused Tanveer has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 08.04.2025 but after perusal of his bail granting order, it reflects, there is no discussion of evidence of CCTV footage in the order dated 08.04.2025 and his bail was granted on the ground that it appears, except the statement of co-accused and confessional statement of applicant, there is no other evidence against him and, therefore, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned AGA that by concealing material fact, co-accused Tanveer obtained bail and, therefore, in view of this Court, no benefit can be extended to the applicant on the basis of bail granting order of co-accused Tanveer. 12. 12. Further, at this stage, there is no reason to disbelieve the electronic evidence details of which have been filed by learned AGA in the counter-affidavit. Further, learned counsel for the applicant could not place any facts on the basis of which, CCTV footage can be considered doubtful. 13. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 14. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is rejected. 15. It is open for the State to move bail cancellation application for cancelling the bail granted to co-accused Tanveer, which he obtained by concealing material fact. 16. 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 :- 6.5.2025 KK Patel Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad