HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33789 of 2026 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Heard Sri Kumar Vikrant and Sri Ajeet Srivastava, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Vivek Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Kunwar Tejendra Bahadur, learned AGA, for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.184 of 2026, under Section 103(1) BNS, Police Station Garhmukteshwar, District Hapur during pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsels for the applicant submit that however, applicant is named in the FIR along with others but it is a case of circumstantial evidence and except the fact that applicant called the deceased from the house and thereafter next day his dead body was found and on the pointing out of applicant one bloodstained spade and his bloodstained cloths were recovered, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record. 4. They further submit that as per prosecution applicant had taken the deceaed on 18.4.2026 at about 5.00 PM in the evening and dead body of the deceased was found next day and, therefore, this evidence cannot be said to be incriminating circumstance against the applicant. 5. They further argued that as far as above recoveries are concerned, the same were made from an open place, which was accessible to all and even alleged recovered items till date could not be connected with the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajeet Srivastava, Kumar Vikrant, Vijay Shanker Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anurag Patel, G.A., Vivek Kumar Mishra Sunil .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) instant crime as there is no evidence on record, which can suggest that the blood found on the alleged recovered items was of the deceased. 6. They further submit that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 20.4.2026, i.e., for the last more than five months. 7. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that considering the material available on record, prima facie it cannot be said that applicant is innocent. 8. They however could not dispute the other argument on facts advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant so far as the evidence available against the applicant on record is concerned. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 10. However, applicant is named in the FIR along with others but it is a case of circumstantial evidence and according to the prosecution there are following circumstances against the applicant:- (a) applicant had taken the deceased from his home on 18.4.2026 at about 5.00 PM in the evening and thereafter his dead body was found and (b) when applicant was arrested then on his pointing out one blood stained spade allegedly used in the crime and his blood stained cloth were recovered. 11. As far as first circumstance is concerned, considering the fact that dead body of the deceased was found on 19.4.2026, i.e., next day and from the evening of 18.4.2026 till the recovery of his dead body, there is no evidence that applicant was along with the deceased, in considered view of this Court prima facie this circumstance cannot be said to be incriminating circumstance against him. 12. Further, as far as second circumstance is concerned, from the recovery memo it reflects that alleged recoveries were made from near the Factory from an open place, which was accessible to all and even till date alleged recovered items could not be connected with the instant crime as there is no evidence that the blood found on the alleged recovered spade and cloths of applicant was of the deceased, therefore, on the basis of this circumstance also prima facie it cannot be said that applicant committed BAIL No. 33789 of 2026 2 the murder of the deceased. 13. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail in since 20.4.2026, i.e., for the last more than five months. 14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is 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 applicant-Sunil 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. 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 applicant. 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. September 29, 2026 SKM BAIL No. 33789 of 2026 3 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad