Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:5170 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32731 of 2024 Applicant :- Aman Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Dubey,Shashi Chood Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dwijendra Prasad,G.A.,Pradyumna Kumar along with Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32815 of 2024 Applicant :- Billu @ Ankit Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Dubey,Shashi Chood Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dwijendra Prasad,G.A.,Pradyumna Kumar Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Both these connected matters arose from the same FIR and, therefore, they are being disposed of by the common order. 2. Heard Sri Rakesh Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Dwijendra Prasad, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Manav Chaurasiya, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 0059 of 2024, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station- Etmadpur, District- Agra, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 02.03.2024 against applicants and two others and according to FIR on 28.02.2024 at about 5 p.m. in the evening brother of the informant had gone along with co-accused Dileep in his tempo and on the way, applicants and co-accused Anuj joined their company. It is further mentioned in the FIR that brother of the informant and co-accused persons after purchasing liquor, consumed the same and thereafter they beaten his brother and committed his murder and ran away. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that totally on the basis of false allegation, applicants have been made accused in the present matter along with co-accused Dileep and there is no evidence on record which can suggest that applicants also joined the company of the deceased and Dileep. 6. He further submitted that from perusal of the post-mortem report of the deceased, it reflects that his cause of death could not be ascertained and his viscera was preserved and now viscera report of the deceased is on record, which has been annexed along with the instant bail application and from its perusal, it reflects that deceased died due to consumption of Aluminium phosphide and therefore, it appears nobody forcibly administered poisonous substance to him as it is impossible that Aluminium phosphide may be administered forcefully to any person. 7. He further submitted that applicants are not having any criminal history and they are in jail in the present matter since 02.07.2024. 8. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that both the applicants were along with the deceased and co-accused Dileep and Anuj in the tampo and there is evidence that applicants and other accused persons purchased liquor and as after consumption of liquor deceased died, therefore, it cannot be said that there is no evidence against the applicants on record but both the counsels could not dispute the fact that there is no evidence that applicants were the person, who administered poisonous substance to the deceased. 9. They further could not dispute the fact that there is also no evidence that applicant joined the company of co-accused Dileep and deceased while they were in tampo. 10. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. However, as per allegation, while deceased was going in tempo along with co-accused Dileep, applicants also joined their company along with co-accused Anuj but it appears, except the bald and verbal allegation, there is no evidence in this regard on record. 12. Further, from the viscera report of the deceased, it reflects that he died due to consumption of Aluminium phosphide but there is no evidence on record, which can suggest that applicants administered Aluminium phosphide to him. 13. Further, applicants are not having any criminal history and they are in jail in the present matter since 02.07.2024. 14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicants are entitled to be released on bail. 15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 16. Let the applicants- Aman and Billu @ Ankit Yadav 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 applicants shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicants 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 applicants shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 17. 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 applicants. 18. 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 KK Patel Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad