Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83772 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15565 of 2025 Applicant :- Paramjeet Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Bharti Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Pankaj Bharti, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kunwar Tejendra Bahadur, learned AGA, for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.287 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 140(1), 238 and 3(5) BNS, Police Station Titawi, District Muzaffarnagar during pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however, applicant is named in the FIR along with co-accused Amit but it reflects that merely on the basis of suspicion he has been made accused in the present matter. 4. He further submits that FIR of the present case was lodged under Section 140(1) BNS on 2.12.2024 at about 22.28 hours and merely on the basis of suspicion which was raised in the FIR, applicant was arrested in the night of 2/3.12.2024 at about 12.05 AM and thereafter as per prosecution on his pointing out dead body of the deceased was recovered from a drain. 5. He further submits that the manner in which recovery was made, entire recovery becomes doubtful. He next submits that even recovery was made from a place which was accessible to all. 6. He further submits that it appears that after recovery of the dead body of the deceased, a false evidence has been cooked up against the applicant and Investigating Officer falsely shown that dead body of the deceased was recovered on the pointing out of the applicant. 7. He further submits that however, apart from the above evidence there is also evidence that when statement of one Seema was recorded then she stated that deceased informed him that applicant is calling him and he is going to meet him but there is no evidence that applicant was ever last seen along with the deceased. 8. He next submits that as per prosecution on the pointing out of the applicant two wooden sticks were also recovered which were lying near the dead body. 9. He further submits that on the basis of above recovery at this stage it cannot be said that applicant involved in the instant crime. 10. He further submits that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and prosecution could not connect the applicant with the instant crime as there is no cogent and admissible evidence against the applicant on record. 11. He further submits that after investigation merely on the basis of above evidence charge sheet has been filed. 12. He further submits that however apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of one another case but said case relates to Arms Act and he has explained his criminal history in the instant bail application. 13. He further submits that in the present matter applicant is in jail since 03.12.2024, i.e., for the last more than five months. 14. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 16. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and it appears that except the recovery of the dead body of the deceased and the wooden sticks allegedly used in the crime on the pointing out of the applicant there is no other cogent evidence against the applicant on record and from the perusal of the recovery memo it reflects that above recoveries of the dead body was made from a drain which was accessible to all. 17. Further, considering the over all circumstances and facts of the case, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that prima facie the above recoveries appear to be doubtful cannot be completely brushed aside at this stage. 18. Further, however, applicant is having criminal history of one another case but criminal history of the applicant has been explained in the instant bail application. 19. Further, applicant is in jail in the present matter since 03.12.2024, i.e., for the last more than five months. 20. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 21. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 22. Let the applicant-Paramjeet 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. 23. 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. 24. 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 :- 19.5.2025 SKM Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad