Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:82400 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14847 of 2025 Applicant :- Sandeep Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Aushim Luthra,Praveen Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Sri Praveen Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajiv Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 409 of 2024, under Sections 103(1) BNS and Section 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station Gauri Bazar, District Deoria, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however, applicant is named in the FIR but it is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no eye witness account and it reflects merely on the basis of suspicion, applicant has been roped in the present matter by the informant i.e. mother of the deceased. 4. He further submitted that however, as per informant and prosecution witnesses, after the death of the husband of the deceased, applicant wanted to develop relationship with her and due to this reason on 5.9.2024 he had taken the deceased from her house and thereafter her dead body was recovered but in fact, applicant never took the deceased from her house. 5. He further submitted that if, applicant wanted to develop relationship with the deceased and deceased opposed the conduct of the applicant and even family member of the deceased opposed the same then there was no occasion for the deceased to accompany the applicant and this fact clearly suggests that the allegation that deceased had gone alongwith the applicant on 5.9.2024, prima facie, appears to be false and doubtful. 6. He further submitted that apart from the above evidence of last seen, as per prosecution when applicant was arrested then on his pointing out one blood stained cloth of the applicant was recovered but said recovery was made from 3rd house which did not belong to the applicant and applicant is not having any concern with the said house and therefore, prima facie this recovery appears to be doubtful and even on the basis of such recovery, applicant cannot be connected with the instant crime. 7. 7. He further submitted that even till date, there is no evidence that the alleged blood found on the alleged cloth was of either human blood or it was the blood of the deceased. 8. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 7.9.2024 i.e. for last more than six months. 9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments 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. However, as per allegation after the death of the husband of the deceased, applicant was having bad eye upon her and due to his reason, he committed her murder and on 5.9.2024, he had taken her from her house and thereafter her dead body was found but considering the nature of allegation levelled against the applicant, prima facie, story narrated by the informant in the FIR that on 5.9.2024 deceased had gone alongwith the applicant, appears to be doubtful. 12. Further, however, apart from the above evidence of last seen, there is also allegation against the applicant that when he was arrested then on his pointing out his one blood stained cloth was recovered but from the recovery memo which has been annexed alongwith the instant bail application it reflects, the alleged recovery was made from the house of one Singhasan Prasad and it appears, applicant is not having any concern with Singhasan Prasad. Considering this fact, argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant with regard to recovery, cannot be ruled out, at the stage. 13. Further, except the above evidence, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record. 14. Further, however, it also reflects that on the pointing out of the applicant as per prosecution, knife used in the alleged crime was also recovered but the said recovery was made from a bush, a place which was accessible to all. 15. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 7.9.2024 i.e. for last more than six months. 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- Sandeep 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. 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 :- 17.5.2025 Ankita Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad