HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13825 of 2026 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J. 1. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 27.04.2026, the Investigating Officer of the case, Sri Ram Vilash Upadhyay, S.H.O., Police Station Airport, Commissionerate Prayagraj, appeared before this Court in person. An Affidavit of Compliance has been filed on his behalf by Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned A.G.A.-I, which is taken on record, wherein it is stated that he had produced the pen-drive of the recovery in compliance of Section 105 of B.N.S.S. before the concerned court at the time of remand of the accused but by mistake making the pen-drive as part of case diary has not been mentioned in case diary. 2. The Court is satisfied with the explanation furnished by the Investigating Officer, and his personal presence is hereby exempted until further orders of this Court but warns him to be more careful in future. 3. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Narendra Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Awaneesha Kumar, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record. 4. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 407 of 2025, under Section 103(1), 238(A) B.N.S Police Station Meja, District Prayagraj, during the pendency of the trial. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that, though the applicant was named in the F.I.R., the entire allegation is based on Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abdul Danish, Abhishek Kushwaha, Harsh Pratap Singh Maurya, Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Awaneesha Kumar, G.A. Awdhesh Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) apprehension and doubt, and no one had seen the incident; thereafter, the F.I.R. was lodged after finding the body of the deceased. It is further submitted that, as per the post-mortem report of the deceased conducted on 01.08.2025, the deceased received one stab wound at the front of the left side and centre of the chest, which was found to be fatal. 6. It is further submitted that a false recovery of one bloodstained knife has been shown on the pointing out of the applicant, but the procedure prescribed under Section 105 of the B.N.S.S. has not been followed. Therefore, the recovery is also false, as there was no independent eye-witness of the aforesaid recovery. The applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 1.8.2025. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant himself came to the house of the deceased and took him away. Subsequently, the dead body of the deceased was found in a nearby area in an open field. It is further submitted that one eye-witness, Narendra, has also supported the prosecution story and stated that he had seen the incident of stabbing by the applicant to the deceased. Thereafter, on the pointing out of the applicant, one bloodstained knife has also been recovered. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and keeping in view the nature of the offence, the evidence, and the complicity of the accused, and also taking into account the fact that there is an eye-witness not only of the last seen but also of the incident, coupled with the recovery of the bloodstained weapon, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of the applicant is hereby rejected. May 7, 2026 SA BAIL No. 13825 of 2026 2 (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SALMAN ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad