Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:26454 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1967 of 2025 Applicant :- Deepak Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Goswami Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mayank Prakash Rawat Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Pankaj Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mayank Prakash Rawat, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 554 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 127(2), 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Agra during pendency of the trial. 3. FIR of the present case was lodged against applicant and others and according to the FIR due to previous enmity applicant and others committed the murder of brother of the informant, however, from the FIR it reflects, informant was not an eye witness. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, applicant has been named in the FIR but informant of the case was not an eye witness. He next submits, initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Section 109 B.N.S. but after the death of the deceased case was converted under Section 103(1) B.N.S. 5. He further submits, till 07.10.2024 Investigating Officer could not record the statement of any eye witness but suddenly on 07.10.2024 he recorded the statements of two witnesses Lavkush and Himanshu and they claimed themselves to be eye witnesses and, however, they stated against the applicant and others but as their statements were recorded after 12 days therefore no reliance can be placed on their testimony. 6. He further submits, even from the perusal of the statements of above witnesses, it appears, however, they stated against the applicant and others but it also appears, they very casually stated against applicant and their statements are not convincing. He further submits, except the statements of alleged eye witnesses Lavkush and Himanshu there is no other evidence against the applicant on record. 7. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 28.09.2024. 8. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted witnesses Lavkush and Himanshu were the eye witnesses and they have categorically disclosed the name of applicant and stated that applicant along with other accused persons made assault upon the deceased due to which he sustained injuries an died but could not dispute that statements of these witnesses were recorded after ten days. 9. They further could not dispute the fact that except the statements of above two witnesses there is no other evidence against the applicant on record. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. From the record, it reflects, however, applicant named in the FIR but admittedly informant of the case is not an eye witness, therefore, it reflects, on the basis of suspicion name of the applicant has been disclosed in the FIR of the present case. 12. Further, record also suggests during investigation Investigating Officer recorded the statements of two witnesses namely Lavkush and Himanshu and however they stated that applicant and other accused persons made assault due to which deceased died but their statements were recorded after 12 days and no explanation has been given in this regard. 13. Further, after perusing the statements of both the above witnesses, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that their statements do not appear to be convincing, cannot be ruled out at this stage. 14. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 28.09.2024. 15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 16. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 17. Let the applicant - Deepak 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. 18. 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. 19. 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 :- 24.2.2025 AK Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad