Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:69127 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 539 of 2025 Applicant :- Irshad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Gopal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Shri Krishna Gopal, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri R. N. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.220 of 2019, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Hafizganj, District Bareilly, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per allegation, applicant and three others committed the murder of the deceased on 01.07.2019 but admittedly, informant of the case was not the eye-witness. 4. He further submits that sole eye-witness of the incident was Smt. Reshma, the sister of the deceased and however she in her statement stated against the applicant and others but surprisingly her statement was recorded on 12.12.2019 i.e. after five months from the date of the incident and therefore, it appears, nobody could see the real incident and no reliance can be placed on such highly belated statement. 5. He further submits that except the statement of Smt. Reshma, there is no other cogent evidence against the applicant on record. 6. He further submits that as per allegation, earlier an FIR was lodged under Section 376 I.P.C., therefore, applicant and others committed the murder of the deceased but actually the FIR under Section 376 I.P.C. was lodged by co-accused Mahesh Pal against the deceased and therefore, even applicant was not having any motive to commit the instant crime. 7. He further submits that even applicant was not distantly concerned with co-accused Mahesh Pal and it appears, only being one of the villagers, he has been made accused in the present matter. 8. He further submits that however, present case is of the year 2019 but at that time there was Covid-19 Pandemic period and only due to that reason to save his life, applicant had gone at some other place and subsequently when he came to know that coercive measures are being taken against him then he surrendered on 21.10.2024 and since then he is in jail. 9. He further submits that applicant has given an undertaking that if he will be released on bail then he will regularly attend the trial court on each and every date either in person or through his counsel and he will fully co-operate with the trial. 10. Per contra, learned AGA however, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that sole eye-witness of the case was Smt. Reshma, the sister of the deceased and her statement was recorded after five months from the date of the incident. 11. However, learned A.G.A. further submits that prima-facie applicant appears to be an absconder and he appeared before the trial court after five years but he could not dispute the fact that at the time of lodgement of the FIR, there was Covid-19 Pandemic period and applicant is in jail in the present matter since 21.10.2024 i.e. for last more than six months and he has given an undertaking that if he will be released on bail then he will regularly attend the trial court on each and every date either in person or through his counsel and he will fully co-operate with the trial. 12. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case. 13. However, as per allegation, applicant and others committed the murder of the deceased but it reflects, informant of the case was not an eye-witness. 14. Further, however record suggests that sole eye-witness of the case was Smt. Reshma, the sister of the deceased but surprisingly her statement was recorded after five months from the date of the incident and considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that no reliance can be placed on such highly belated statement, cannot be ruled out. 15. Further, however, it reflects, applicant surrendered before the court concerned after about five years but considering the fact that the FIR of the present case was lodged during Covid-19 Pandemic period, the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant in this regard, cannot be ruled out. 16. Further, applicant has given an undertaking that if he will be released on bail then he will regularly attend the trial court on each and every date either in person or through his counsel and he will fully co-operate with the trial. 17. Further, applicant is in jail in the present matter since 21.10.2024 i.e. for last more than six months. 18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 19. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 20. Let the applicant- Irshad, 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. 21. 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. 22. 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 :- 30.4.2025/Zafar Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad