Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21745 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1855 of 2025 Applicant :- Rohit Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Kamlesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajiv Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 479 of 2024, under Section 103(1) BNS, Police Station Jagdishpura, District Agra, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 2.9.2024 against the applicant and according to the FIR on 20/21.8.2024 son of the applicant had gone from the house on the call of the applicant but did not return and subsequently his dead body was recovered. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and except suspicion there is no cogent evidence against the applicant on record. 5. He further submitted that deceased had gone from his house in the night of 20/21.8.2024 and his dead body was recovered on 24.8.2024 but inspite of that FIR of the present case was lodged on 2.9.2024, therefore, there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. 6. He further submitted that however, earlier applicant has also made accused for offence under section 498A IPC but that matter has been compromised and in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 3.9.2024. 7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and as per prosecution about Rs. 300/-of the deceased were due upon the applicant, therefore, he committed his murder but it appears, except suspicion there is no cogent evidence in this regard on record. 10. Further, it is a case of circumstantial evidence but inspite of that motive of the prosecution appears to be very weak. 11. Further, FIR of the present case was lodged after about 12 days from the date when deceased had gone from his house and even after more than a week from the date of recovery of his dead body, therefore, there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR of the present case. 12. Further, however, it appears, applicant was also made accused in a case under section 498A IPC but that matter has been compromised and in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 3.9.2024 13. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 14. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 15. Let the applicant-Rohit, 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. 16. 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. 17. 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 :- 14.2.2025 Ankita Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad