Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:4949 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32083 of 2024 Applicant :- Safi Mohammad @ Sukha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Rajeev Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.N. Srivastava, learned AGA for the State. 3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 49 of 2024, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Sakrawa, District Kannauj during pendency of the trial. 4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 09.04.2024 against applicant and co-accused Raveena (wife of the informant) and according to the FIR on 09.04.2024 when informant after receiving information arrived at his home then found, his mother has died. It is further mentioned in the FIR that his son Ankur informed him that applicant committed the murder of the deceased. It is further mentioned in the FIR that informant is having suspicion that in the alleged incident his wife Raveena is also involved. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of false allegation merely on the basis of suspicion, applicant has been made accused in the present matter. 6. He further submits, from the perusal of the FIR and other material available on record, it reflects that son of the informant was the sole eye witness and however, he supported the prosecution case during investigation but when he was examined by the trial court as PW-2 on 24.10.2024 then he did not support the prosecution case and he has been declared hostile. He further submits, even informant of the case, who although supported the prosecution case initially in his examination-in-chief but in his cross-examination did not support the prosecution case.He further submits, statements of both the witnesses have been annexed along with rejoinder affidavit. 7. He further submits, except Ankur, the son of the informant, there is no eye witness account. He further submits, there is no evidence that applicant either present at the house of the informant or he was last seen either along with the wife of the informant or with the deceased. 8. He further submits, except the statement of the son of the informant there was no evidence against the applicant on record. 9. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 10.04.2024 i.e. for nine months. 10. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits, actually applicant was having illicit relationship with the wife of the informant and when both were alone in the room and were witnessed by the deceased then applicant strangulated the deceased along with wife of the informant but could not dispute the fact that except the son of the informant and co-accused Raveena there was no eye witness account and son of the informant and co-accused during trial has been declared hostile. 11. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that even informant during his cross examination did not support the prosecution case. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 13. However, as per allegation applicant along with wife of the informant strangulated his mother and incident was also witnessed by the son of the informant Ankur but it reflects that witness Ankur during trial did not support the prosecution case and has been declared hostile and apart from Ankur there was no other eye witness account and it also reflects except the statement of Ankur recorded during investigation there was absolutely no evidence against the applicant on record. 14. Further, however, informant of the case initially in his examination-in-chief supported the prosecution case but during cross examination he did not support the prosecution case and admittedly he was not an eye witness. 15. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 10.04.2024 i.e. for nine months. 16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 18. Let the applicant - Safi Mohammad @ Sukha 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. 19. 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. 20. 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 :- 9.1.2025 AK Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad