Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:20204 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1422 of 2025 Applicant :- Mohd Sajjad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Irshad Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Irshad Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ghanshyam Mishra, 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. 0462 of 2024, under Sections 140(1), 103(1), 238 BNS, Police Station- Naugava Sadat District- Amroha, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 03.08.2024 against applicant and three others and according to FIR, due to previous enmity, on 01.08.2024 applicant and other accused persons committed the murder of brother of the informant. It is further mentioned in the FIR that applicant and other accused persons were last seen along with the deceased by number of witnesses. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and admittedly no one could see the real incident and except the evidence of last seen, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record. 5. He further submitted that actually, deceased has missed somewhere from his house on 01.08.2024 and in this regard on 02.08.2024 his maternal uncle Roshan filed a missing report but when the dead body of the deceased was recovered on 02.08.2024 then next day, FIR was lodged on the basis of false allegation. 6. He further submitted that it is quite surprising that Roshan the maternal uncle of the deceased, who lodged the missing report, in his statement recorded during investigation, stated that he witnessed the deceased along with applicant and other accused persons and this fact clearly suggests that evidence of last seen given by him is totally false. 7. He further submitted that all the witnesses, who provided evidence of last seen, were family members of the deceased, therefore, no reliance can be placed on their testimony. He further submitted that even merely on the basis of evidence of last seen, it cannot be said that applicant committed the murder of the deceased. 8. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 16.08.2024. 9. 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. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and it reflects that except the evidence of last seen, there is no other cogent evidence against the applicant on record. 12. Further, evidence of last seen has been given by close family members of the deceased, therefore, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that even evidence of last seen does not appear to be convincing, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage. 13. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 16.08.2024. 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- Mohd Sajjad 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 :- 11.2.2025 KK Patel Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad