Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78541 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14045 of 2025 Applicant :- Rajendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ray Sahab Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Ray Sahab Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 64 of 2025, under Sections 103(1) B.N.S., Police Station Talbehat, District Lalitpur during pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant is informant of the case and he lodged the FIR of the present case with regard to murder of his nephew against five persons but during investigation he himself has been made accused in the present matter. 4. He further submits, informant i.e. applicant is the eye witness of the incident but in spite of that on the basis of statement of two witnesses Shivam Raja and Rishi Raja he has been made accused in the present matter during investigation. 5. He further submits, even from the statements of above witnesses, it could not be reflected that they were the eye witnesses. 6. He further submits, during investigation when the statements of family members of the informant and deceased were recorded then they also reiterated the version of the FIR. 7. He further submits, there is no cogent evidence which can suggests that applicant was the person who committed the murder of his nephew and thereafter he lodged false FIR. 8. He further submits, however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of two other cases but both the cases relate to minor offences and in the present matter he is in jail since 07.02.2025. 9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. From the record, it reflects, applicant is the informant of the case but during investigation on the basis of statements of two witnesses namely Shivam Raja and Rishi Raja, he has been made accused in the present matter but even from the statements of these witnesses it reflects, they were not the eye witnesses. 12. Further, from the FIR it reflects, informant i.e. applicant claimed himself to be eye witness and he disclosed the name of accused who made assault upon the deceased. 13. Record further suggests that even during investigation when the statements of family members of the informant and deceased were recorded then they also reiterated the version of the FIR, therefore, prima facie involvement of the applicant at subsequent stage during investigation appears to be doubtful. 14. Further, however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of two other cases but both the cases relate to minor offences. 15. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 07.02.2025. 16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 18. Let the applicant - Rajendra Singh 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. 19. 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. 20. 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