Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86658 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16627 of 2025 Applicant :- Harish Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Singh Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vipin Kumar Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Rahul Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vipin Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Shatruhan Yadav, learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 36 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 238, 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station Hastinapur, District Meerut during pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however applicant was not named in the FIR but during investigation through the statement of named co-accused Ramveer he has been made accused in the present matter. 4. He further submits, it is a case of circumstantial evidence and except the statement of co-accused and confessional statement of the applicant before police there is no cogent and admissible evidence against the applicant on record. 5. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 13.02.2025. 6. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that however it is a case of circumstantial evidence but apart from the statement of co-accused and confessional statement of applicant before police there is also statements of witnesses Sonu and Ajay and as per their statements recorded during investigation when they arrived at the place of incident then they witnessed that applicant and co-accused Vikash were trying to clean the place of incident where blood was present but they could not dispute the fact that this fact has been disclosed by these witnesses in their second statements. They however could not dispute the other argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 8. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and it reflects, during investigation through the statement of co-accused Ramveer applicant has been made accused in the present matter. 9. Further, record also suggests that however except the statements of co-accused and confessional statement of the applicant before police there are also statements of two witnesses Sonu and Ajay recorded during investigation which were produced by learned AGA during the course of argument and from perusal of these statements, it reflects, according to these witnesses when they arrived at the place of incident then they found that applicant and co-accused Vikash were trying to clean the place of incident where blood was present but these witnesses disclosed this fact in their second statements and this fact have not been disclosed by them in their first statements. 10. Record further suggests that except the above evidence there is no other evidence against the applicant on record. 11. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 13.02.2025. 12. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 13. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 14. Let the applicant - Harish 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. 15. 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. 16. 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 AK Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad