Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85277 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13445 of 2025 Applicant :- Amir Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Srivastava,Ch. Dil Nisar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohammed Shadan,Mohd. Aslam Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Chaudhary Dil Nisar, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri R. N. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State- respondent and Shri Mohd. Aslam, learned counsel for the informant. 3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.345 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 3(5), 61(2) B.N.S., Police Station Nagal, District Saharanpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was not named in the FIR but when the statement of the informant was recorded then he very casually disclosed the name of the applicant by stating that applicant also involved in the present crime alongwith co-accused Shadab @ Sonu. 5. He further submits that when after three days' I.O. recorded the statement of the witness Rao Shahwar Chauhan then he started claiming himself to be eye-witness and stated that applicant and co-accused Shadab @ Sonu by causing firearm injuries committed both the murders but his statement appears to be doubtful. He further submits, as informant earlier had disclosed the name of the applicant, therefore, this witness also started disclosing the name of the applicant. 6. He further submits that even the alleged eye-witness Rao Sahwar Chauhan is the close relative of the deceased and informant and therefore, if he would have witnessed the incident then this fact would have definitely been disclosed by him to the informant but from the FIR, it could not be reflected that this witness is the eye-witness and therefore, this fact clearly suggests that actually witness Rao Sahwar Chauhan is also not the eye- witness and only due to previous enmity, which is admitted by the informant himself in the FIR, applicant has been made accused in the present matter alongwith co-accused Shadab @ Sonu. 7. He further submits that as applicant is the close relative of the co-accused Shadab @ Sonu therefore, only due to this reason during investigation, he has also been made accused in the present matter. 8. He further submits that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 14.11.2024 i.e. for last more than six months. 9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit that Rao Sahwar Chauhan is the eye-witness and he categorically stated that applicant and co-accused Shadab @ Sonu by causing firearm injuries committed the murder of both the deceased and it is a case of double murder, therefore, applicant should not be released on bail. 10. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. From the record, it reflects that applicant was not named in the FIR but when the statement of the informant was recorded then he disclosed the name of the applicant by stating that he alongwith co-accused Shadab @ Sonu committed both the murders but it reflects, informant of the case was not the eye-witness. 12. Further, however, statement of alleged eye-witness namely Rao Sahwar Chauhan is on record and according to him, applicant and co-accused Shadab @ Sonu committed both the murders but it reflects, his statement was recorded after three days and he is close relative of the informant and deceased but inspite of that he did not disclose this fact to the informant. Considering this fact, his statement prima-facie appears to be doubtful. Further, even he appears to be chance witness. Further, accept the alleged eye- witness Rao Sahwar Chauhan, there is no other eye-witness account. 13. Further, enmity is admitted between both the sides and even before the statement of the alleged eye-witness, informant of the case had already disclosed the name of the applicant. 14. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter sicne 14.11.2024 i.e. for last more than six months. 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- Amir, 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 :- 20.5.2025 Zafar Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad