HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26963 of 2025 Court No. - 66 HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Nasira Adil, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Yagyavalk Pandey, learned AGA for the State- respondents and perused the record. 2. This bail application under Section 483 BNS has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant, Anurag @ Manoj @ Bablu, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 44 of 2025, under Sections 103 (1), 61 (2), 3 (5) BNS, Police Station Sahar, District Auraiya. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by Sessions Judge, Auraiya, vide order dated 15.06.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this case crime number and is languishing in jail since 24.03.2025. He has no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the incident took place on 19.03.2025 and its FIR was lodged on 21.03.2025 without giving any explanation for delay in lodging the FIR. It is submitted that the FIR was lodged against unknown person and the applicant is not named in the FIR. His name has surfaced during course of investigation in the confessional statement of one Ramji Nagar. As per the postmortem report, the deceased had sustained one entry wound, one Y shaped stitched wound, one incised wound, two abrasions, one multiple abraded contusion, one contusion, whole left eye contused and right side of eye Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nasira Adil Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shiv Kumar, Shiv Poojan Yadav Anurag Alias Manoj Alias Bablu .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) contusion predent on upper eyelid. It is next submitted that initially the FIR was lodged under Section 109 BNS but after the death of the deceased the case has been converted into under the aforesaid sections. It is further submitted that the applicant was arrested without any cogent material on record accept the confessional statement of co-accused. In the criminal jurisprudence, suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof. Where is prosecution's case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, the legal standard demands that every link in the chain of circumstances must be established beyond reasonable doubt. There is only one Parcha No. 18 dated 15.05.2025 in the Case Diary, it has come that from the perusal of the FIR proved that the deceased wife had given the location of the deceased to the applicant which absolutely wrong and having making no sense because from the perusal of the CDR of Pragati did not made any call to her husband prior to the alleged incident with regard to give location. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and on the basis of the CCTV footage it was found that the co-accused were seen with the deceased and all the witnesses in this case are interested witness. Neither the applicant committed the murder of the deceased nor had hatched the conspiracy to get it done in any manner and there is no direct or indirect evidence against the applicant and, therefore, the present case is full of falsification, baldness, absurdness and highly improbable of the allegations contained in the FIR. Hence, bail has been prayed for. 5. Per contra learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the applicant was illicit relation with the wife of the deceased hence, he hatched the conspiracy for murder of the deceased namely Dilip by hiring other co-accused persons and the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail 6. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be inappropriate to discuss the evidence in depth at this stage because it is likely to influence the trial of the accused. But, from the perusal of the BAIL No. 26963 of 2025 2 evidences, collected during investigation so far, prima facie, the involvement of the accused in the present case cannot be ruled out. No reason is found to falsely implicate the applicant/accused. Therefore, there is no good ground to release the applicant-accused on bail at this stage. All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant pertain to the merits of the case and the same cannot be considered while considering application for grant of bail. This court is unable to form an opinion at this stage that the accused has not committed an offence. 8. In the ultimate conclusion, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of the offence, severity of punishment, in my opinion, no case for bail is made out. 9. Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected. 10. It is clarified that the observations made regarding the bail application is limited to the decision of the bail application and any observations made herein shall not effect the trial of the case. September 10, 2025 v.k.updh. BAIL No. 26963 of 2025 3 (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad