Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:82071 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13890 of 2025 Applicant :- Raju Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bharat Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ankit Kumar Yadav,G.A.,Harishchandra Yadav Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Harishchandra Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Shatrughan Yadav, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 358 of 2024, under Sections 103(1) BNS, Police Station Gunnaur, District Sambhal, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and applicant was not named in the FIR but during investigation bhabhi of the deceased was made accused and when her statement was recorded then she disclosed the name of applicant and co-accused Bhadres. 4. He further submitted that however, as per allegation, applicant was having conversation with co-accused Bhadres and his CDR report also suggest that location of his mobile phone was also found near the place of incident but merely on the basis of above evidence, at this stage, it cannot be said that applicant involved in present crime. 5. He further submitted that co-accused Bhadres was distant relative of the applicant, therefore, if applicant had conversation with him then this fact cannot be incriminating circumstance against the applicant. 6. He further submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and prosecution misrably failed to connect the applicant with instant crime as there is no cogent and admissible evidence against the applicant on record. 7. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 16.12.2024. 8. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the applicant opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 10. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and applicant was not named in the FIR but during investigation when the name of co- accused Neha, bhabhi of the deceased was revealed and thereafter, when her statement was recorded then she disclosed the name of applicant and it appears, however, apart from the statement of co- accused and confessional statement of the applicant, as per prosecution, there is also evidence that applicant had conversation with co-accused Bhadres and location of his mobile phone was also found near the place of incident but considering the fact that applicant was known to co-accused and as per the applicant co- accused Bhadres was even his distant relative, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that even if applicant had number of conversations with co-accused Bhadres then merely on this basis, it cannot be said that he involved in the instant crime. 11. Further, even merely on the basis of his CDR, at this stage, it cannot be said that applicant committed murder of the deceased alongwith other. 12. Further, except above evidence, there is no other cogent evidence against the applicant on record. 13. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 16.12.2024. 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-Raju, 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 :- 17.5.2025 Ankita Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad