Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86614 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16659 of 2025 Applicant :- Manpreet Singh Alias Sunny Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- A.C.Srivastava,Pranjal Chaudhari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Mr. Mohit Baisla, Advocate filed his power on behalf of the informant which is taken on record. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant, is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri A.C.Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Mohit Baisla, learned counsel for the informant and Dr. S. B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent. 4. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 06 of 2024, under Sections 302/34, 120B IPC, Police Station Hastinapur, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however, as per allegation by causing fire arm injury, applicant committed the murder of the son of the informant but entire allegation levelled against the applicant is totally false. 6. He further submitted that from the record, it reflects that witnesses Balwant and Raju were the eye witnesses but surprisingly their statements were recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation on 31.1.2024 i.e. after 25 days. 7. He further submitted that even from the FIR it reflects that it was lodged after 14 hours of the alleged incident and from the FIR it also reflects that after the incident, above eye witnesses remained in the field throughout the night and all these facts clearly suggest that actually they were not the eye witnesses and after 14 hours informant introduced them as eye witnesses. 8. He further submitted that except the above witnesses Balwant and Raju there is no other eye witness account. 9. He further submitted that enmity between both the sides are admitted and only due to this enmity, applicant has been made accused in the present matter alongwith others. 10. He further submitted that apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of two cases but both the cases relates to minor offences and criminal history of the applicant has been explained in the instant bail application. 11. He further submitted that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 17.12.2024. 12. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it is a case in which due to election enmity, son of the informant has been murdered and applicant was the principal accused who caused fire arm injuries to the deceased and incident has been witnessed by two witnesses Balwant and Raju but both could not dispute the fact that that statements of these two witnesses, were recorded after 25 days and even there is delay of 14 hours in the lodgement of the FIR of the present case. 13. They, however, further submitted that actually apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of four other cases but he has explained criminal history of only two cases in the instant bail application but they could not dispute the fact that out of alleged two unexplained cases, one case is under the provisions of U.P. Gangsters Act in which applicant has been made accused on the basis of present matter and another one case also relates to minor offence. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 15. However, applicant is named in the FIR and as per allegation he by causing fire arm injury to the deceased committed his murder and incident has been witnessed by two witnesses, namely, Balwant and Raju but from the FIR it could not be reflected that informant was the eye witness. 16. Further, from the record it reflects only eye witnesses of the present case were above named witnesses Balwant and Raju but surprisingly their statements were recorded during investigation by the Investigating Officer after 25 days and no plausible explanation has been given by the Investigating Officer in this regard. 17. Further, even from the record, it reflects that FIR of the present case was lodged after 14 hours and from the FIR, it also reflects that as per informant both the above witnesses after the incident remained hide in the field over the night. 18. Considering over all facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that actually nobody could see the real incident and subsequently, above eye witnesses Balwant and Raju were procured by the informant and thereafter he lodged FIR of the present case, cannot be rule out, at this stage. 19. Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of four other cases and he explained criminal history of only two cases but it reflects, majority of the cases relate to minor offences. 20. Further, in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 17.12.2024. 21. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 22. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 23. Let the applicant-Manpreet Singh Alias Sunny, 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. 24. 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. 25. 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 :- 22.5.2025 Ankita Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad