Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83742 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16802 of 2025 Applicant :- Ram Kishun Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vidya Dhar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Vidya Dhar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 50 of 2025, under Section 105 BNS, Police Station- Saray Khwaza, District- Jaunpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however, applicant is named in the FIR along with one another but admittedly informant is not the eye-witness. 4. He further submitted that after 29 days when the statement of wife of the deceased was recorded then she claimed herself to be an eye-witness and stated that applicant along with co-accused made assault, due to which, her husband died but prima faice, her statement does not appear to be convincing as her statement was recorded quite belatedly, therefore, no reliance can be placed on her version. 5. He further submitted that even post-mortem report suggests that deceased sustained only single injury on his head, therefore, present case does not travel beyond Section 105 part II BNS. 6. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 29.01.2025. 7. Per contra, learned AGA however, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. However, applicant is named in the FIR along with one another but it reflects, informant was not the eye-witness. 10. Further, however, from the statement of wife of the deceased, it reflects, she was the eye-witness and according to her, applicant along with co-accused made assault, due to which, her husband died but her statement was recorded after 29 days. 11. Further, from the post-mortem report, reflects, deceased sustained only single injury on his head, therefore, it cannot be said that applicant was having any intention to cause death of the deceased. 12. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 29.01.2025. 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- Ram Kishun 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 :- 17.5.2025 KK Patel Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad