HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35378 of 2024 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Akash Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Siddharth Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 178 of 2024, under Sections 302/34 of I.P.C., Police Station - Bardah, District - Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant along with his brother Mahendra Rajbhar is stated to have barged into the house of the informant in the night of 30.05.2025 at about 11:30 PM and committed the murder of informant's brother Uday Raj. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by more than three hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that the postmortem examination of the deceased person was started on 31.05.2024 at about 01:10 PM and concluded at 01:40 PM and the said postmortem examination report Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akash Dwivedi, Anil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Siddharth Srivastava Ram Sakal Alias Rangeela .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) indicates that the rigor mortis passed through the bodies which indicates that the offence was committed more than 18 hours from the time of examination while the difference between the time of incident and the offence as alleged in the FIR is barely about 14 hours only, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. 7. Learned counsel has further contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.07.2024, having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the said opinon as provided in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology is only of general in nature as it may vary by 6 to 12 hours depending upon the condition of the body and its preservation, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the applicant is named in the FIR and the FIR is prompt, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 10. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 11. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. 12. 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. October 10, 2025 Siddhant BAIL No. 35378 of 2024 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad