Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134756 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20505 of 2025 Applicant :- Saurabh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nikil Pathak,Sunil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ardhendu Shekhar Sharma,G.A.,Ram Babu Sharma Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Kumar Ankit Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Babu Sharma, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 114 of 2025, under Sections 333, 103(1), 309(6), 317(2), 61(2)(ka), 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station- Sikanderabad, District- Bulandshahar, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the FIR was instituted against unknown persons regarding dacoity and murder in the mid night of 04.02.2025. Heavy amount of cash and jewellery was taken by the assailants. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed as it was instituted the next day at 04:40 PM. The applicant is not named in the FIR. False recovery of Rs. 15,579/- along with golden ring and other ornaments has been foisted upon the applicant along with co-accused. There is no test identification parade conducted as per the provisions of Section 7 of the Bhartiya Shakshya Adhiniyam. There is also a statement of the daughter of the deceased person indicating that her father has reached the place of occurrence in the night of incident only and the FIR was instituted the next evening, as such, the delay has not been properly explained. 6. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 05.02.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the instant case is squarely covered by Section 119(1) illustration (a) of the Bhartiya Shakshya Adhiniyam as the recovery has been made one day after the incident, as such, the proximity of the recovery of the material taken by the assailants is too less to indicate it to be false implication. It is further argued that there is nothing to suggest as to what animosity the informant carried with the applicant, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the heavy amount of looted articles from the applicant that too just one day after the incident, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. 11. 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 :- 7.8.2025 Karan (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad