HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33346 of 2026 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Heard Sri Amarnath Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Anurag Dubey, learned counsel for the informant and Dr. S. B. Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 103 of 2026, under Sections 103(1) BNS, Police Station Alau, District Mainpuri, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and nobody was named in the FIR but during investigation very casually informant in his statement recorded by the Investigating Officer raised suspicion against the applicant. 4. He further submitted that during investigation when Investigating Officer recorded the statement of two witnesses Jaichandra and Umesh then they stated that they witnessed the applicant while he was going towards the river having axe in his hand and thereafter on the pointing out of the applicant, the alleged axe and his blood stained cloths were recovered. 5. He further submitted that except the above evidence, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record. 6. He further submitted that in absence of any other corroborative evidence merely on the basis of above evidence, prima facie, it cannot be said that applicant committed the murder of the deceased specially considering the fact that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted and till date alleged Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amarnath Tripathi, Narendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anurag Dubey, G.A. Naman @ Namo .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) recovered items could not be connected with the instant crime. 7. He further submitted that however it is a case of circumstantial evidence but prosecution could not disclose any motive against the applicant. 8. He further submitted that applicant is having no previous criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 4.4.2026. 9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and nobody was named in the FIR. 12. According to the prosecution, following circumstances are against the applicant:- (a) Applicant was seen by the witnesses Jaichandra and Umesh while he was going towards the river and at that time he was having axe in his hand. (b) On the pointing out of the applicant an axe and his blood stained clothes were recovered. 13. As far as first circumstance is concerned, prima facie, statements of both the witnesses appear to be doubtful and even merely on the basis of above statements, prima facie, it cannot be said that applicant involved in the present crime. 14. Further, as far as second circumstance is concerned, the manner in which alleged recovery was made it, prima facie, casts doubt on the entire recovery. 15. Further, even till date alleged recovered item could not be connected with the instant crime. However, in the present matter charge sheet has been submitted. 16. Considering the overall facts of the case, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that prima facie, there is no evidence which can connect the applicant with the instant crime. BAIL No. 33346 of 2026 2 17. Further, however it is a case of circumstantial evidence but even then prosecution could not disclose any clear and strong motive against the applicant 18. Further, applicant is having no previous criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 4.4.2026 i.e. for last five and half months. 19. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 20. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 21. Let the applicant-Naman @ Namo, 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. 22. 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. 23. 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 18, 2026 Ankita BAIL No. 33346 of 2026 3 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad