Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84123 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15987 of 2025 Applicant :- Shivam Yadav @ Monu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Kumar Dube Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,P.K. Upadhyay,Vikram Yadav Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Kuldeep Kumar Dube, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vikram Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Rajeev 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. 109 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 61(2) BNS, Police Station- Line Bazar, District- Jaunpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged against three persons (non-applicant) and according to FIR, nominated accused persons committed the murder of father of the informant but surprisingly during investigation when the statement of the informant was recorded then he disclosed the name of applicant and this fact clearly suggests that without any evidence informant implicated the applicant in the present matter along with others. 4. He further submitted that however, during investigation, when the statements of two witnesses Shailendra Kumar Yadav and Ram Asarey Yadav were recorded then they claimed themselves to be eye-witnesses and according to them, applicant and three others made assault upon the deceased but their statements do not appear to be convincing and even their statements were recorded after more than seven days. He further submitted that even witness Shailendra Kumar Yadav was the real brother of the deceased and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on his statement. 5. He further submitted that it is a case of blind murder and only due to reason that applicant was having friendship with co-accused Rahul Yadav, he has been made accused in the present matter. He further submitted that motive of crime was against co-accused Rahul Yadav. 6. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 05.04.2025. 7. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that witnesses Shailendra Kumar Yadav and Ram Asarey Yadav were the eye- witnesses and they specifically stated that applicant and three others committed the murder of the deceased but could not dispute the fact that their statements were recorded after seven days and before recording their statements, when the statement of the informant was recorded then he had already disclosed the name of the applicant, however, informant did not disclose his name in the FIR.. They further could not dispute the fact that witness Shailendra Kumar Yadav was brother of the deceased. They further could not dispute the fact that even both the above eye-witnesses appear to be chance witnesses. They further could not dispute the fact that motive of crime was against co-accused Rahul Yadav. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. However, as per allegation, due to the assault made by applicant and others deceased died and two witnesses Shailendra Kumar Yadav and Ram Asarey Yadav claimed themselves to be eye- witnesses and they disclosed the name of the applicant and other co-accused but applicant was not named in the FIR and even before recording statements of above eye-witnesses, his name had already been disclosed by the informant. 10. Further, even both the eye-witnesses appear to be chance witnesses and their statements do not appear to be convincing. Further, witness Shailendra Kumar Yadav is the brother of the deceased. 11. Further, motive of crime was not against the applicant and it was against co-accused Rahul Yadav. 12. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 05.04.2025. 13. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 14. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 15. Let the applicant- Shivam Yadav @ Monu 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. 16. 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. 17. 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 KK Patel Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad