Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85312 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17369 of 2025 Applicant :- Heerakali Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Karunesh Narayan Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Karunesh Narayan Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the State- respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 460 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 3(5) BNS, Police Station Sirauli, District Bareilly, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged against unknown person with regard to the murder of elder brother of the informant but during investigation when his statement was recorded then he disclosed that actually murder of his brother was committed by applicant and co-accused Pappu and incident has been witnessed by Yadram and his wife Ramwati and when statements of these witnesses were recorded then although Ramwati claimed herself to be an eye witness and stated that applicant and co-accused Pappu committed the murder of the deceased but witness Yadram did not state that he witnessed the real incident and only stated that on the date of incident applicant and co-accused Pappu were running from the house of the deceased. 4. He further submitted that however, witness Ramwati during investigation claimed that she is eye witness but she was the relative of deceased and informant but inspite of that earlier she did not disclose this fact to the informant that she witnessed the incident and therefore, her statement, prima facie, appears to be doubtful. 5. He further submitted that actually applicant and deceased were having very close relationship and informant did not like her relationship with the deceased and therefore, during investigation on his instigation witness Ramwati who was his close relative started giving evidence against the applicant and co-accused Pappu. 6. He further submitted that even statement of the sole eye witness Ramwati, prima facie, appears to be unconvincing. He further submitted that even her statement was recorded on 2.1.2025 i.e. after three days of the alleged incident. 7. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 3.1.2025. 8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that witness Ramwati is the eye witness and she categorically stated that applicant alongwith co-accused Pappu committed the murder of the deceased but they could not dispute the fact that she was relative of the informant but inspite of that FIR was lodged against unknown person. 9. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that the statement of witness Ramwati was recorded after three days of the alleged incident. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. However from the record, it reflects that witness Ramwati was the eye witness and according to her, applicant and co-accused Pappu committed murder of the deceased but her statement was recorded after three days and further, manner in which she alleged that she witnessed the incident, prima facie, appears to be unconvincing. Further, even she was close relative of the informant but inspite of that nobody was named in the FIR. 12. Further, except the statement of witness Ramwati, there is no eye witness account and applicant is lady, she is having no criminal history to her credit and she is in jail in the present matter since 3.1.2025. 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-Heerakali, 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 :- 21.5.2025 Ankita Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad