Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85916 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17353 of 2025 Applicant :- Dheeraj And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by applicants is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA, for the State. 3. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants with the prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No.096 of 2025, under Section 105 BNS, Police Station Swar, District Rampur during pendency of the trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that however, applicants are named in the FIR but it appears that without any evidence they have been roped in the present matter as admittedly informant of the case was not the eye witness. 5. He further submits that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and nobody could see the real incident and however, during investigation witnesses Chadammi Lal and Pooran Singh tried to give evidence of last seen but their statements do not appear to be convincing. He next submits that even their statements were recorded after 15 days and except the evidence of last seen and confessional statements of applicants, there is no other cogent evidence against the applicants on record. 6. He further submits that however, apart from the present case applicant no.1 is also having criminal history of one another case but that case relates to minor offence and his criminal history has been explained in the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application. 7. He further submits that applicants are in jail in the present matter since 26.3.2025. 8. Per contra, learned AGA , however, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 10. However, applicants are named in the FIR but it reflects that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and nobody could see the real incident including the informant and it reflects that on the basis of suspicion names of the applicants were disclosed in the FIR of the present case. 11. Further, however, as per statements of the witnesses Chadammi Lal and Pooran Singh, they witnessed the applicant along with the deceased on the date of incident but their statements were recorded quite belatedly after two weeks and even their statements do not appear to be convincing. 12. Further, except the evidence of last seen and confessional statement of the applicants, there is no other cogent and admissible evidence against the applicants on record. 13. Further, however, apart from the present case applicant no.1 is having criminal history of one another case but his criminal history has been explained in the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application and it also reflects, said case relates to minor offence. 14. Further, in the present matter applicants are in jail since March, 2025. 15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicants are entitled to be released on bail. 16. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 17. Let the applicants-Dheeraj and Rajpal 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 applicants shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless their personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 18. 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 applicants. 19. 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 SKM Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad