Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:71674 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12073 of 2025 Applicant :- Satish Alias Kaliya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Garun Pal Singh,Harishchandra Yadav,Mudit Agnihotri Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dharmendra Kumar Mishra,G.A.,Manoj Kumar,Neeraj Kumar Yadav,Ravi Shukla Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Mudit Agnihotri, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dharmendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned AGA for the State. 3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 534 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 61(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Kotwali Sadabad, District Hathras during pendency of the trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, FIR of the present case was lodged against four accused (non applicant) with regard to murder of the brother of the informant and during investigation on the basis of suspicion applicant has been made accused in the present matter. 5. He further submits, after raising suspicion, informant moved an application in which he disclosed the name of applicant and other accused but admittedly informant was not an eye witness. 6. He further submits, as per prosecution during investigation when the statement of one Dhanveer was recorded then he stated that applicant and others confessed their guilt before him and thereafter statement of one Saurabh was recorded and he tried to give the evidence of last seen and except the above evidence there is no other evidence against the applicant on record. 7. He further submits, extra judicial confession of the applicant is a weak piece of evidence and applicant never confessed his guilt before anyone. He further submits, even the manner in which the evidence of last seen was surfaced in the present matter appears to be unconvincing. 8. He further submits, it is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no cogent circumstance against the applicant which can connect him with the instant crime. 9. He further submits, however, apart from 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 in the present matter he is in jail since 18.11.2024. 10. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted, applicant is not innocent person and during investigation his complicity was revealed and he and others not only confessed their guilt before witness Dhanveer but witness Saurabh also witnessed them along with the deceased, therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case applicant should not be released on bail. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and it reflects, during investigation applicant has been made accused in the present matter and as per prosecution witness Dhanveer stated in his statement that applicant and others confessed their guilt before him and as per witness Saurabh he witnessed the applicant and others along with the deceased before the incident but their statements do not appear to be convincing. Further, except the above evidence there is no other evidence against the applicant on record. 13. Further, even evidence of last seen and evidence of extra judicial confession could only be surfaced after the application moved by the informant and this fact also cast doubt on these evidence. 14. Further, however, apart from 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 in the present matter he is in jail since 18.11.2024. 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 - Satish @ Kaliya 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 :- 5.5.2025 AK Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad