Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:88703 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17740 of 2025 Applicant :- Ankit Poswal Alias Arvind Alias Jitendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Shri S. I. Jafri, Advocate apprise the Court that he has filed his power on behalf of the informant in the Registry of this Court on 22.05.2025 i.e. yesterday and therefore, his name could not be shown in the cause list. 2. Heard Shri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Vijay Bahadur Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State- respondent and Shri N. I. Jafri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri S. I. Jafri, learned counsel for the informant. 3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.1843 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 201, 420, 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahar, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that however, it is a case, in which, as per prosecution, one person died and six persons sustained injuries but applicant was not named in the FIR and during investigation through the statement of one of the co-accused, he has been made accused in the present matter. 5. He further submits that except the statement of the co- accused and confessional statement of the applicant, there is no cogent and admissible evidence against the applicant on record. 6. He further submits that co-accused Danish and Naved were even named in the FIR and they have been released on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and their bail orders have been annexed alongwith the instant bail application. 7. He further submits that against the bail granting orders of co- accused Danish and Naved, informant approached before the Apex Court but even the S.L.Ps. filed by him has been dismissed by the Apex Court and order passed by the Apex Court have also been annexed alongwith the instant bail application and case of applicant is on better footing than named co-accused Danish and Naved. 8. He further submits however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of two other cases including a case under Section 307 I.P.C. but in that case, applicant has already been acquitted by the trial court vide order dated 25.09.2019 and remaining one case relates to Arms Act in which, applicant has been made accused after arrest in the present matter. 9. He further submits that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 17.12.2021 i.e. for last almost more than three and half years. 10. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 11. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. However, it it a case, in which, one person died and six persons sustained injuries but it reflects, applicant was not named in the FIR and during investigation his complicity was revealed through the statement of the co-accused. 13. Record further suggests that except the statement of the co- accused and confessional statement of the applicant before the police, there is no cogent and admissible evidence against the applicant on record. 14. Further, however, co-accused Danish and Naved were even named in the FIR but they have been released on bail by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court and however, informant challenged their bail granting orders before the Apex Court but S.L.Ps. filed by him have been dismissed by the Apex Court. 15. Further, however, apart from the present case, that applicant is having criminal history of two other cases including a case under Section 307 I.P.C. but it reflects, in that case, applicant has already been acquitted by the trial court vide order dated 25.09.2019 and remaining one case relates to the provisions of Arms Act in which, it appears, applicant has been made accused after arrest in the present matter. 16. Further, applicant is in jail in the present matter since 17.12.2021 i.e. for last almost more than three and half years. 17. Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 19. Let the applicant- Ankit Poswal Alias Arvind Alias Jitendra, 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. 20. 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. 21. 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 :- 23.5.2025 Zafar Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad