Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85973 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17395 of 2025 Applicant :- Vijay Bahadur Alias Tilakdhari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Nath Chaubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Hari Nath Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shatrughan Yadav, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 67 of 2024, under Sections 103 (1) BNS, Police Station Barour, District Kanpur Dehat, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 24.11.2024 against the applicant and according to the FIR applicant was the neighbour of the mother in law of the informant and he used to visit her house very often and pressurized her to execute will in his favour and when his mother in law refused for doing so then he threatened him and in the intervening night of 23/24.11.2024 he committed her murder. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however, applicant is named in the FIR but on the basis of false allegations, applicant has been made accused in the present matter and informant of the case was not the eye witness. 5. He further submitted that when statement of the informant was recorded during investigation then he twisted the FIR version and stated that on 22.4.2024 i.e. about a day before, his wife i.e. daughter of the deceased had gone to the house of the deceased and in his presence, applicant committed the murder of the deceased by causing injuries through wooden sticks and when statement of the wife of the informant-Ruprani was recorded then she also claimed herself to be an eye witness and reiterated the version of her husband i.e. informant recorded during investigation but as in the FIR this fact has not be disclosed by the informant that his wife i.e. daughter of the deceased on the date of incident was in her paternal home and she witnessed the incident, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the statement of the alleged eye witness Ruprani. He further submitted that except Ruprani there is no other eye witness account. 6. He further submitted that actually deceased about 15 years before executed a will in favour of her daughter i.e witness Ruprani but after that informant and his wife did not take care of her and in the meantime, applicant came very close to the deceased as being neighbour, he looked after her and suddenly seeing the changed behaviour of deceased, informant and his wife inferred that in future, deceased can change her will and only due to this reason after her murder, applicant has been made accused in the present matter. 7. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 25.11.2024. 8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that from the record it reflects that daughter of the deceased namely Ruprani i.e. wife of the informant was eye witness but he could not dispute, this fact has not been disclosed by the informant in the FIR. 9. He, however, further submitted that apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of one another case but he fairly conceded that case relates to minor offences. 10. He further could not dispute the fact that in the present matter applicant is in jail since 25.11.2024. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. However, it reflects that wife of the informant i.e. daughter of the deceased is the eye witness and on the date of incident, she was in the house of her mother i.e. deceased but FIR of the present case was lodged by husband of the alleged eye witness but inspite of that he did not disclose this fact in the FIR and considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that actually nobody could see the real incident and during investigation daughter of the deceased has been introduced as an eye witness, cannot be ruled out, at this stage. 13. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 25.11.2024 i.e for last six months. 14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 16. Let the applicant-Vijay Bahadur Alias Tilakdhari, 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. 17. 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. 18. 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 :- 21.5.2025 Ankita Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad