Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90556 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12885 of 2025 Applicant :- Sonu Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Aryan Srivastava,Prakash Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kuber Singh Yadav,Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Prakash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Sonu Yadav, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 370 of 2024, under Section(s) 103(1), 61(2) B.N.S. registered at P.S. Pavai, District- Azamgarh. 4. The F.I.R. of the matter was lodged on 5.12.2024 by Prashant Yadav against Virendra and Ankit alleging therein that his father(Ramashanker) was murdered on 05.12.2024. He like a routine went to open his shop at about 6.00 a.m. where he found his father in a pool of blood in a dead condition. His head was pierced with sharp edged weapon. His wrist was also pierced with some pointed weapon. He immediately informed his family members and the police on Dial-112 number. He has old enmity with Virendra and Ankit who have committed the said offence. The accused persons be arrested and action be taken. 5. The post mortem examination of the deceased was conducted on 05.12.2024 in which the doctor found the following injuries:- "1. Lacerated wound of size 03cm x 01 cm x bone deep present on left side face, 02 cm below from left eye with underlying bone fracture. 2. Abraded contusion of size 18cm x 12cm present on left side face to left temporal region with underlying bone fracture. 3. Lacerated wound of size 01cm x 01cm x muscle deep present on dorsal aspect of right side wrist joint. 4. Abrasion of size 03cm x 01cm present on 01cm below from dorsal aspect of right wrist joint. 5. Abrasion of size 02cm x 02cm present on right fore arm, 14cm below from right elbow joint." Cause of death was opined as coma due to ante mortem head injury. There was large hematoma present on brain. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. It is submitted that implication of the applicant, for the first time, has surfaced in the matter in the confessional statement of the co-accused Ankit Yadav. It is submitted that the same is not admissible. It is further submitted that subsequently a CCTV footage was recovered by the police and on its perusal, it was seen that a day prior to the present incident in the night Ankit along with his associates was seen going on the first floor of a building in which a bank was situated after which the said CCTV footage was shown to Vikas Kumar Yadav who identified one of the persons as the applicant. It is submitted that the same is not having any information incriminating with regards to the present incident. It is further submitted that the applicant was previously involved in one case of the year 2019, the details of which have been given in para-24 of the affidavit, in which he has been granted bail by the court concerned. Further it is submitted that the applicant is involved in one other case, the details of which have been given in para-25 of the affidavit in which till date neither any charge sheet has been submitted nor he has been summoned by the police or any statement of the applicant has been recorded. It is submitted that the present incident is such in which there is no eye witness of the murder of the deceased and subsequently he was found dead by his son in the morning. It is argued that the applicant is in jail since 24.1.2024. It is submitted that co-accused Dileep Yadav has been granted bail vide order dated 7.5.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11541 of 2025, copy of the said order has been placed before the Court which is taken on record. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is a hardened criminal and hired assassin. It is submitted that the confessional statement of the co-accused Ankit Yadav itself shows that he discussed his problem with the applicant on which the applicant made a plan to eliminate the deceased and then the applicant with his other associates reached the place of occurrence a day prior to the incident with co-accused Ankit and then committed the aforesaid offence. It is submitted that counter affidavit in the matter has also been filed. It is submitted that looking to the fact that the applicant is involved in the matter and was identified in a CCTV footage in which the co-accused Ankit with the applicant and other persons had gone to consume non-veg food. It is submitted that implication of the applicant is there. 8. Learned counsel for the State also vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. 9. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. There is no eye witness to the present incident. The present case is a case of circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstance are conspicuously missing. 10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 11. Let the applicant- Sonu Yadav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties (out of which one surety should be the family member of the applicant and the other should be a local person) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 BNSS, 2023 may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 209 BNS, 2023. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS, 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 BNS, 2023. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant. 12. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. 13. The bail application is allowed. 14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 27.5.2025 Naresh Digitally signed by :- NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad