HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33186 of 2026 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Heard Sri Subhash Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajiv Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.151 of 2026, under Sections 103(1), 238, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 61(2), 140(1) BNS, Police Station Kotwali Hathras, District Hathras, during pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, initially FIR of the present case was lodged on 07.04.2026 against co-accused Gaurav Sharma and Kamal Sharma at Police Station Sahpau, District Hathras but subsequently when it was found that actually the matter relates to Police Station Hathras Kotwali then FIR was transferred to Police Station Kotwali. 4. He next submits, during investigation when first statement of informant was recorded on 08.04.2026 then she reiterated the versions of her initial tehrir dated 07.04.2026 and did not disclose the name of applicant and thereafter when she moved second application on 10.04.2026 then in this application also she did not disclose name of applicant but on 12.04.2026 she moved third application and in this application very casually Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Subhash Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Kamal .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) she disclosed name of the applicant by stating that applicant also involved in commission of the present crime alongwith others. He next submits, admittedly informant was not the eye- witness of the case. 5. He further argued, however during investigation investigating officer recorded statements of two eye-witnesses Premlata Sarashwat and Manoj Sharma which have been annexed at pages-70 and 72 of the paper-book and however according to them they witnessed that applicant and other accused who were total 16 in number abducted the deceased but their statements were recorded after more than two months and even they appear to be chance witnesses and merely on the basis of such statements prima facie at this stage it cannot be said that applicant also involved in commission of the present crime. He next submit, there is absolutely no cogent evidence against the applicant. 6. He next submits, even with the a very detailed order co- accused Krishna @ Parth has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 30.07.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.26353 of 2026 and case of applicant is at par with him. 7. He further submits, however apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of seven other cases but all these cases were old one and majority of the cases were of minor nature. 8. He further argued, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 18.05.2026 i.e. for last four months. 9. Per contra, learned AGA however opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 10. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. BAIL No. 33186 of 2026 2 11. From the record it reflects, entire prosecution case is based upon the statements of Premlata Sarashwat and Manoj Sharma who were allegedly eye-witnesses but they prima facie appear to be chance witnesses and even their statements were recorded after more than two months. 12. Further, even co-accused Krishna @ Parth has been released on bail by this Court and on facts case of applicant is at par with him. 13. Further, however apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of seven other cases but his criminal history has been duly explained and it reflects, all the cases were old one and majority of the cases were of minor nature. In view of this Court, if otherwise case of bail is made out then merely on the basis of criminal history instant bail application should not be withheld. 14. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 18.05.2026 i.e. for last four months. 15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 16. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 17. Let the applicant - Kamal 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 BAIL No. 33186 of 2026 3 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. 18. 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. 19. 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 Shahroz BAIL No. 33186 of 2026 4 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAHROJ ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad