Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:14398 Court No. - 5 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1760 of 2025 Applicant :- Sunil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bharat Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. Matter is taken up in the revised call. By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 196 of 2024 at Police Station- Gunnaur, District- Sambhal under Sections 302, 201, 211, 195, 34 IPC and Section 3/25/27 Arms act. The applicant is in jail since 29.06.2024. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 18.12.2024. The following arguments made by Sri Bharat Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Sri Chandan Agrawal, learned AGA-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail: 1. Prosecution case set out in the FIR is that the first informant was returning home. He met his sister in law on the way and they got talking to each other. The identified offenders came with lathis and dandas and starting abusing them. The first informant asked them to desist from the said behaviour. However, the said accused persons started assaulting with lathis and dandas and one Harendra shot dead the deceased. 2. The FIR identifies only Harendra as the principal offender who discharged his fire arm and shot dead the deceased. 3. The postmortem report depicts only fire arm injury and opines that the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to antemortem injuries. 4. The applicant was not named in the FIR. 5. The applicant was subsequently nominated in the statement of co-accused person made before the police authority while in the custody of latter. The statement in so far as implicate the applicant is inadmissible in evidence. 6. The applicant was in fact nominated at the instigation of inimical relatives only oust his claim from the ancestral property of the deceased. 7. The other implicatory piece of evidence is the confessional statement of the applicant before the police authorities while in their custody. The said statement was extracted by coercion and made under duress. The said statement is not admissible in evidence. 8. The applicant had no motive to commit the offence. 9. One country made pistol was planted on the applicant to frame him in the instant case to burnish the credentials of the police investigators. 10. There is no independent witness to the recovery. 11. Recovered article cannot be connected with the offence. 12. The applicant claims congruency in role and seeks parity in relief granted to the co-accused who has been enlarged on bail by this Court by order dated 21.10.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.35307 of 2024. 13. The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case. 14. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial proceedings. There is no possibility of her influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending. In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Sunil be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial. (ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement rendered by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023). The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant. Order Date :- 31.1.2025 Vandit Digitally signed by :- VANDIT AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad