HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33126 of 2026 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Heard Sri Harshit Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vikas Chaunhan, learned Advocate, holding brief of Sri Dhiraj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Imran Khan, 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.309 of 2026, under Sections 333 (452 IPC), 103(1)(302 IPC), 309(6) (394 IPC)317(2)(411 IPC) and 3(5) (34 IPC) BNS, Police Station Nakud, District Saharanpur during pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that FIR of the present case was lodged against unknown persons with regard to loot and murder of the wife of the informant and during investigation when first statement of the informant was recorded then also he reiterated the version of the FIR but surprisingly when next day his second statement was recorded by Investigating Officer then very casually he raised suspicion against the applicant and co-accused and merely on the basis of suspicion applicant has been made accused in the present matter along with co-accused. 4. He further argued that during investigation Investigating Officer recorded the statements of two witnesses and they however stated that they witnessed the applicant on the date of incident near the house of deceased but applicant is neighbor of the deceased and, therefore, this circumstance cannot be incriminating circumstance. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Harshit Pathak, Shivam Pandey, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dhiraj Kumar Pandey, G.A. Ankur Gupta .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 5. He further argued that however, as per prosecution, when applicant was arrested then on his pointing out his bloodstained cloths and one earrings of the deceased were recovered but entire recovery is false and planted one and even alleged recovery was made from such place which was accessible to all and even alleged recovered item til date could not be connected with the instant crime. 6. He further submits that apart from the above evidence there is no other evidence against the applicant on record. 7. He further argued that apart from the present case, applicant is also having criminal history of two other cases but in one case relating to Section 377 IPC applicant has been acquitted and in another case after investigation final report has been submitted. 8. He further submits that in the present matter applicant is in jail since 04.6.2026, i.e., for almost four months. 9. He further submits that therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case applicant may be enlarged on bail. 10. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that allegation against the applicant and co-accused are quite serious as they after committing the murder of the deceaed also committed loot in her house but could not dispute the fact that the alleged recovered items were made from an open place which was accessible to all. 11. They also could not dispute the fact that the alleged bloodstained cloths of the applicant could not be connected with the instant crime. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 13. However, it is a case of loot with murder but it is case of circumstantial evidence and nobody was named in the FIR but in spite of that very casually informant in his second statement raised suspicion against the applicant and co-accused and merely on the basis of suspicion raised by him they have been made accused in the present matter. 14. Further, however, according to two witnesses they witnessed the applicant while he was coming from the lane where the house of the BAIL No. 33126 of 2026 2 deceased was situated but considering the fact that applicant is neighbour of the deceased this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that this circumstance cannot be said to be incriminating circumstance. 15. Further, however, as per prosecution on the pointing out of the applicant, his bloodstained cloths and one golden earrings of the deceased was also recovered but alleged recovery has been made from a place which was accessible to all and, therefore, entire recovery prima facie appears to be doubtful. 16. Further, even till date the alleged recovered bloodstained cloths of the applicant could not be connected with the instant crime and there is no evidence that blood found on the cloths of the applicant was of the deceased. 17. In considered view of this Court, in the absence of any other corroborative evidence merely on the basis of above evidence prima facie it cannot be said that applicant involved in commission of present crime. 18. Further, however, apart from the present case applicant was also made accused in two other cases including a case under Section 377 IPC but in this case he has been acquitted and in another case, after investigation final report has been submitted. 19. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail for almost four months and after investigation on the basis of above evidence charge sheet has been filed. 20. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 21. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 22. Let the applicant-Ankur Gupta 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:- BAIL No. 33126 of 2026 3 (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. 23. 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. 24. 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 1, 2026 SKM BAIL No. 33126 of 2026 4 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad