Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85867 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14150 of 2025 Applicant :- Jogendra Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bishram Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Shri Pankaj Kumar Yadav, Advocate apprise the Court that he has filed his power on behalf of the informant on 17.05.2025 in the Registry of this Court but inspite of that his name has not been shown in the cause list. However, he further submits that he is ready to argue the matter. 2. Heard Shri Bishram Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Brjesh Pratap Singhi, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Shri Pankaj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the informant. 3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.143 of 2023, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Ravindra Nagar Dhoos, District Kushi Nagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however, applicant was named in the FIR alongwith co-accused Monu Yadav but admittedly informant of the case was not the eye- witness. 5. He further submits that however, during investigation when I.O. recorded the statement of one Bholu Sharma then he claimed himself to be eye-witness and according to him, applicant was the person, who committed the murder of the deceased but when he was examined by the trial court as P.W.-3 on 17.02.2025 then he has been declared hostile and his statement recorded before the trial court has been annexed at page 81 of the paper book. He further submits, as the sole eye-witness of the incident has been declared hostile, therefore, possibility of conviction of the applicant in the present case is quite remote. 6. He further submits that however, bail application of co-accused Monu Yadav was dismissed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.07.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.45391 of 2023 but it reflects, till that date sole eye- witness Bholu Sharma has not been declared hostile and therefore on the basis of bail rejection order of the co-accused Monu Yadav, bail application of the applicant should not be withheld. 7. He further submits that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 22.07.2023 i.e. for last almost two years. 8. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit that co-accused Bholu Sharma was the sole eye-witness and he categorically in his statement recorded during investigation stated that applicant by causing injuries committed the murder of the deceased but they could not dispute the fact that when he appeared before the trial court the he did not support the prosecution case. 9. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 22.07.2023 i.e. for last almost two years. 10. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. However, applicant is named in the FIR alongwith co-accused Monu Yadav but admittedly informant of the case was not the eye- witness. However, during investigation, it was revealed that witness Bholu Sharma was the eye-witness and when his statement was recorded then he stated that co-accused Monu Yadav caught hold the deceased and applicant by causing injuries to him committed his murder but when sole eye-witness Bholu Sharma appeared before the trial court then he did not support the prosecution case and he has been declared hostile. 12. Further, however, bail application of co-accused Monu Yadav has been dismissed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.07.2024 but it reflects, after rejection of his bail application, eye-witness Bholu Sharma has been declared hostile by the trial court, therefore, in the light of the bail rejection order of the co-accused Monu Yadav, in view of this Court, bail application of the applicant should not be withheld. 13. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 22.07.2023 i.e. for last almost two years. 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- Jogendra Yadav, 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 :- 20.5.2025 Zafar Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad