Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:123627 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24707 of 2025 Applicant :- Madhur Arya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raghuvansh Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S. B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 136 of 2025, under Sections 7, 7A & 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Rajpura, District Sambhal, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is a strange case in which FIR of the case was lodged with regard to the murder of a girl under section 103(1) BNS and other sections but during investigation through extra judicial confession, informant of the case himself has been made accused and from his extra judicial confession allegedly made by him before one witness Ratan Singh which has been annexed alongwith the instant bail application it reflects that through the applicant who was chief pharmacist, post mortem report of the deceased of the case has been manipulated. 4. He further submitted that thereafter when the statement of one of the co-accused Pravesh was recorded by Investigating Officer then he also reiterated the narration of informant i.e co-accused with regard to the applicant and merely on the basis of these two statements of the co-accused before the police and extra judicial confession before the witness, applicant has been made accused in the present matter and offence under sections 7, 7A and 13 Prevention of Corruption Act have been added alongwith other sections in the same FIR which was lodged with regard to the murder of girl. 5. He further submitted that there is absolutely no cogent and admissible evidence against the applicant on record. 6. He further submitted that law is settled that statements of the co- accused cannot be used. 7. He further submitted that surprisingly till date even nobody could challange the veracity of the post mortem report. 8. He further submitted that admittedly even Chief Pharmacist i.e. applicant could not conduct the post mortem and the same was conducted by autopsy surgeon, namely, Sachin Verma but till date surprisingly neither he has been made accused nor he was interrogated by Investigating Officer. 9. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 9.6.2025. 10. Per contra, learned AGA 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 the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. From the perusal of the record, it reflects that applicant is Chief Pharmacist and as per allegation he manipulated the post mortem report of the deceased with the connivance of other co- accused including informant but only evidence against him are the statements of the co-accused and his statement before the police and one extra judicial confession. 13. Further, admittedly, applicant did not conduct the post mortem and the same was conducted by the autopsy surgeon but surprisingly till date he was neither made accused nor till date his statement could be recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation. 14. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 9.6.2025. 15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 16. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 17. Let the applicant-Madhur Arya, 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. 18. 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. 19. 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 :- 28.7.2025 Ankita Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad