HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26779 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Durg Vijay Singh, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.145 of 2025, under Section 103(1) B.N.S., Police Station Devgaon, District Azamgarh with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. PROSECUTION STORY: 4. The husband of the informant was sleeping outside the iron channel in the house and the informant was sleeping inside the channel. Between 2:30-3:00 a.m. she suddenly woke up and found that her husband had been set afire alongwith his cot and he was shouting that he was set afire by Jaiprakash @ Munna and his son Kishan by sprinkling petrol over him. 5. The informant also saw the applicant and co-accused person running away from the place of occurrence. 6. The husband of the informant was rushed to the hospital at Tikargarh, Lalganj, from where he was referred to District Hospital, Jaunpur, whereby he expired. The FIR was instituted on 29.04.2025 at 11:51 a.m. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Krishna Kumar Singh, Sunil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Jay Prakash Alias Munna Vishwakarma .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: 7. The FIR is delayed by more than eight hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 8. The informant did not care to inform the police about the incident during the said transportation of the injured person to hospital. 9. Much reliance has been placed on the inquest report, whereby the inquest proceedings were started at 12:30 p.m. the same day and the information at the police station has been reached at 9:48 a.m. and the person who gave the information to the police station was Ramjanam Vishwakarma, who is panch witness no.2 in the inquest proceedings. 10. Even the post-mortem report indicates that the deceased person was brought dead at the District Hospital, Jaunpur at 5:10 a.m., which stands mentioned in enclosure no.3 of the said documents. 11. A video recording of the deceased person is also on record, but there is no voice test conducted to indicate that it was the voice of the deceased person. The said video has been tutored. 12. There is civil suit going on between the family of the applicant and the deceased person and it is a clear-cut case of false implication. 13. The applicant lives in Mumbai and had come to the village for some religious purpose and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no eye-witness to the incident. 14. There is no criminal history of the applicant. He is in jail since 30.04.2025 and is ready to cooperate with trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT: 15. It is an open and shut case. The instant case is covered by Section 4 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, whereby the accused persons were seen leaving the place of occurrence in a hurry after setting the husband of the informant afire and even the deceased person was naming the applicant and co-accused person at the time of being set afire, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. BAIL No. 26779 of 2025 2 CONCLUSION: 16. After hearing the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the deceased was naming the applicant and co-accused person at the time of being set afire and the applicant and co-accused person was seen by the informant running away from the place of occurrence coupled with the fact that there is a video recording of the deceased person regarding the incident, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 17. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 18. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Apex 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. 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. October 8, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 26779 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad