Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:26533 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1098 of 2025 Applicant :- Sahul Rajbhar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Pandey,Manu Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- Balram Mishra,G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Manu Sharma and Sri D.K. Pandey, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Balram Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA-I for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 191 of 2024, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar during pendency of the trial. 3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 10.03.2024 against five accused persons (non applicant) and according to the FIR nominated accused persons on 10.03.2024 at about 2.30 PM in the absence of the informant committed the murder of his wife. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant was not named in the FIR but during investigation merely on the basis of suspicion that he was having illicit relationship with the deceased, he has been made accused in the present matter. 5. He further submits, after his arrest Investigating Officer on 22.03.2024 i.e. after 12 days recorded the statement of one Mukesh Rajbhar, the relative of the informant and he in his statement stated that as applicant had given one mobile phone to the deceased and their relationship became sore, therefore, he had gone along with him to the house of the deceased for the purpose to take back his mobile and when applicant was in the house of the deceased then in the meantime he had gone in the house of neighbor but his testimony does not appear to be convincing and even no reliance can be placed on such evidence as this statement was recorded after 12 days even after the arrest of the applicant. 6. He further submits, after the arrest of the applicant as per allegation, applicant confessed his guilt and on his pointing out a hammer, which was allegedly used in the crime and broken mobile phone of the deceased were recovered but entire recovery is false and planted one. He next submits, even from the recovery memo, which has been annexed along with instant bail application, it reflects, it was recovered from an open place, which was accessible to all, therefore, merely on the basis of such recovery, it cannot be said that applicant committed the murder of the deceased. 7. He further submits, as per prosecution, the location of the mobile phone of the applicant was found in the village of the deceased and in last 24 hours he made number of conversation with the deceased but as according to the prosecution applicant was having illicit relationship with the deceased, therefore, this fact cannot be clinching evidence against the applicant. 8. He further submits, admittedly there is no eye witness account and it is case of circumstantial evidence and there is no evidence against applicant. It is next submitted, charge-sheet has already filed against the applicant after exonerating the named accused persons. 9. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 20.03.2024 i.e. since almost a year. 10. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted however it is a case of circumstantial evidence but circumstances clearly suggest that applicant is the person who committed the murder of the deceased. They further submits, applicant was having illicit relationship with the deceased and location of his mobile phone was also found near the house of the deceased. They further submitted, on the pointing out of the applicant the weapon used in the crime and broken mobile phone of the deceased were also recovered, therefore, considering all these facts, he should not be released on bail. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and it appears, during investigation after exonerating the named accused persons applicant has been made accused in the matter on the ground that he was having illicit relationship with the deceased. 13. Record further suggests that however Investigating Officer recorded the statement of one Mukesh Rajbhar who was relative of the informant and according to him on the date of incident applicant along with him had gone up to the house of the deceased and thereafter applicant entered in her house and thereafter this witness left the place of incident but statement of this witness was recorded after 12 day after the arrest of the applicant and even his statement does not appear to be convincing, therefore, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that at this stage, no reliance can be placed on such testimony. 14. Further, record also suggests that when applicant was arrested then according to the prosecution he confessed his guilt and on his pointing out a hammer, which was allegedly used in the crime was recovered but from the recovery memo which has been annexed along with the instant bail application, it reflects recovery was made from an open place which was accessible to all. 15. Further, record also suggests that as per Investigating Officer CDR of the applicant suggests that he made number of conversation with the deceased on 09.03.2044 and 10.03.2024 i.e. on the date of incident and his mobile phone location was also found in the village of the deceased but considering the fact that he was having relationship with the deceased this Court again finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that merely due to this reason it cannot be said applicant involved in the present matter. 16. Further, except the above evidences, it appears, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 20.03.2024 i.e. almost a year. 17. Further, law is settled that bail is a rule while bail rejection is an exception and bail should not be dismissed for punitive purpose. 18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 19. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 20. Let the applicant - Sahul Rajbhar 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. 21. 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. 22. 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 :- 24.2.2025 AK Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad