Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:80318 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15388 of 2025 Applicant :- Amit Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sarveshwar Singh Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the informant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Sarveshwar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Dr. S. B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent. 3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 707 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 61(2) of BNS, Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 4. 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 complicity of the co-accused Lokendra was revealed and thereafter when his statement was recorded then he disclosed the name of the applicant. 5. He further submitted that except statement of the co-accused and confessional statement of applicant before police, there is no evidence against the applicant on record. 6. He further submitted that co-accused Tejpal has been named in the FIR and even his arrest has been stayed by the division bench of this Court and copy of his stay order has been annexed at page- 108 of the instant bail application. 7. He further submitted that apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of three other cases but his criminal antecedents have been explained in the instant bail application and in all the cases, he is on bail. 8. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant alongwith others committed the murder of the deceased and all these facts are clearly evident from the confessional statement of the applicant and statement of the co-accused Lokendra recorded before police but they fairly conceded that except the statement of co-accused and confessional statement of the applicant before police there is no other evidence against the applicant on record. 9. 9. They further could not dispute the fact that the arrest of the co- accused Tejendra who was even named in the FIR has been stayed by the Division bench of this Court. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and it appears during investigation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter through the statement of the co-accused and it reflects except statement of the co-accused and confessional statement of the applicant before police there is no other cogent evidence against the applicant on record. 12. Further, co-accused Tejendra was named in the FIR and it appears when he approached before this Court in criminal writ jurisdiction then his arrest has already been stayed by the Division Bench of this Court. 13. Further, apart from the present case, applicant is, however, having criminal history of three other cases but criminal antecedents of the applicant have been explained in the instant bail application and in all the cases, applicant is on bail. 14. Further, law is settled that if otherwise case of bail is made out then merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, ordinarily bail application of an accused should not be withheld. 15. Further, law is also settled that unless proven guilty, an accused is deemed to be innocent and his bail application should not be dismissed for punitive purposes. 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-Amit Kumar, 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 :- 15.5.2025 Ankita Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad