HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33151 of 2026 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Sri Jitendra Singh, learned Advocate submitted that on 16.9.2026 i.e. yesterday he has filed his power on behalf of the informant in the Registry of this Court and therefore, his name could not be shown in the cause list. 2. Heard Sri Alok Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ghanshyam Mishra, learned Brief Holder for the State-respondent. 3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 360 of 2026, under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 118(2), 333, 351(3) and 352 BNS and 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however applicant is named in the FIR and according to the FIR he by inflicting injuries committed the murder of his father in law and even caused injury to his wife but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false. 5. He further submitted that admittedly informant, the son of the deceased was not the eye witness. 6. He further submitted that however as per prosecution wife of the applicant Monika and her mother were the eye witnesses and even Monika the daughter of the deceased also sustained injuries and they in their statements recorded during investigation reiterated the version of the FIR and stated against the applicant but their statements were recorded after five days and no explanation has been given by the Investigating Officer in this regard and Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aanya Verma, Alok Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Deepak Singh, G.A., Jitendra Singh Sandeep Chaudhary Alias Sandeep Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) this fact casts serious doubt on their statements. 7. He further submitted that even as per prosecution after the incident informant i.e. son of the deceased had taken him to the hospital and at the time of admission he informed in the hospital that some unknown persons inflicted knife injuries to him and this fact is evident from page 45 of the paper book and this fact again casts serious doubt on the prosecution case. 8. He further submitted that applicant is son in law of the deceased and however his dispute was pending with his wife but his dispute was not of such nature due to which he would commit murder of his father in law. 9. He further submitted that from the record of the case it reflects some unknown persons committed the murder of the deceased and as dispute between husband and wife was pending, therefore, applicant who was son in law of the deceased has been made accused in the present matter by his brother in law who was not even present at spot. 10. He further submitted that applicant is innocent and he is having no previous criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 15.7.2026. 11. He further submitted that therefore, considering the above facts, applicant may be enlarged on bail. 12. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is son in law of the deceased and he is husband of the injured-Monika and as per allegation dispute was pending between applicant and his wife and on the date of incident he entered in the house and inflicted knife injuries to his father in law due to which he died and even in the incident his wife Monika also sustained injuries and therefore, allegation levelled against the applicant are very serious. 13. They further submitted that however, there is delay of five days in recording the statements of eye witnesses i.e. wife of the applicant and his mother in law but they were natural witnesses and their presence in the house cannot be doubted at this stage and merely on this ground their statements cannot be disbelieved at this stage. 14. They further submitted that however from the record of the hospital BAIL No. 33151 of 2026 2 where deceased was admitted before his death it reflects, according to the register of the hospital some unknown persons inflicted knife injuries to the deceased but merely on this ground also entire prosecution case, at this stage cannot be disbelieved and this fact can only be properly appreciated by the trial court during trial. 15. They further submitted that considering the statements of the wife of the deceased and wife of the applicant who was also injured of the case, prima facie, it cannot be said that applicant is innocent. 16. They further submitted that even in the present matter applicant is in jail since 15.7.2026 i.e. only for two months. 17. They further submitted that therefore, considering the facts of the case, instant bail application may be dismissed. 18. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 19. Applicant is son in law of the deceased and as per allegation his dispute was pending with his wife and on the date of incident he after entering in his house by causing knife injury committed his murder and even in the incident his wife Monika also sustained injuries and therefore, allegation levelled against the applicant are very serious. 20. Further, from the statements of the wife of the deceased and wife of the applicant who is also injured it reflect, they reiterated the version of the FIR which was lodged by the son of the deceased who was though not the eye witness. Considering their statements, prima facie, it cannot be said that applicant is innocent. 21. Further, however statements of both the witnesses i.e. wife of the deceased and wife of the applicant were recorded after five days but this Court finds merit in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA that merely on this ground at this stage, their statements cannot be disbelieved. 22. Further however from the record of the hospital it reflects, when deceased was admitted in the hospital before his death by the informant then in the register of the hospital it was noted that some unknown persons caused knife injuries to him but in considered view of this Court merely on BAIL No. 33151 of 2026 3 this ground also the statements of the alleged eye witnesses who prima facie appear to be natural witnesses cannot be disbelieved, at this stage and effect of such discrepancy can only be properly appreciated by the trial court during trial. In view of this Court considering the facts of the case, prima facie, it cannot be said that applicant is innocent. 23. Further, even in the present matter applicant is in jail since 15.7.2026 i.e. only for last two months. 24. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in view of this Court, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 25. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands rejected. 26. 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 17, 2026 Ankita BAIL No. 33151 of 2026 4 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad