Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78183 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13108 of 2025 Applicant :- Ranjeet @ Mastana Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kuldeep Singh Yadav,Vinod Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kuldeep Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Vijay Bahadur Maurya, learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 06 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station Sefai, District Etawah during pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, applicant is named in the FIR along with three others and according to the FIR he along with other accused persons committed the murder of the son of the informant by crushing him through vehicle but from the FIR it could not reflected, informant was eye witness. 4. He further submits, when the statement of the informant was recorded by the Investigating Officer, which has been annexed at page-53 of the paper-book then he categorically stated that he was not present at spot and he did not witness the real incident and this fact clearly suggests that on the basis of false allegation, he lodged FIR against the applicant and others. 5. He further submits, however, when Investigating Officer of the case was changed and second statement of the informant was recorded then he started claiming himself to be the eye witness along with others but no reliance can be placed on his subsequent statement and entire story narrated by him in the subsequent statement appears to be doubtful. 6. He further submits, there is absolutely no evidence on record which can suggests that applicant along with others committed the murder of the deceased. 7. He further submits, however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of two other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application and both these cases were lodged by the informant side and in both the cases applicant is on bail. 8. He further submits, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 03.02.2025. 9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that from the second statement of the informant it is apparent that he was eye witness and number of other persons also witnessed the incident and from their statements also it reflects, applicant was the person who along with others committed the murder of the deceased but they could not dispute the fact that when earlier statement of the informant was recorded then he categorically stated that he was not an eye witness and no one could see the real incident. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. However, applicant is named in the FIR along with two others but from the first statement of the informant recorded during investigation it reflects, he was not an eye witness and on specific query made by the Investigating Officer that whether anybody witnessed the incident he replied in negative but surprisingly in the meantime Investigating Officer was changed and through the second statement he claimed himself to be the eye witness and he also disclosed number of witnesses who, according to him also were eye witnesses but in the light of first statement of the informant prima facie his second statement and statements of other witnesses become doubtful. 12. Further, however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of two other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application and it appears, both the cases were lodged by the informant side and in both the cases applicant is on bail. Further, considering this fact even possibility at this stage cannot be ruled out that due to previous enmity applicant has been made accused in the present matter. 13. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 03.02.2025. 14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 16. Let the applicant - Ranjeet @ Mastana 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. 17. 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. 18. 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 AK Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad