HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33504 of 2026 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Pankaj Bharti, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State. 3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 238 of 2026, under Sections 103(1), 61(2) BNS and Section 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District Moradabad during pendency of the trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, it is a case of double murder but applicant was not named in the FIR. He further submits, when the statement of informant was recorded during investigation then in his first statement also he did not disclose the name of applicant and when his second statement was recorded then he disclosed the name of applicant by stating that applicant is nephew of named co-accused Faheem. 5. He further submits, subsequently during investigation after 19 days Investigating Officer recorded the statement of some witnesses including witness Aksha, the daughter of the deceased persons and in her statement she started claiming herself to be the eye witness and she also disclosed the name of applicant and also stated against applicant but even from her statement prima facie it appears, she could not see the real incident and it reflects, as earlier informant i.e. her uncle had disclosed the name of applicant, therefore, she after 19 days also disclosed the name of applicant and no reliance can be placed on her statement. He further submits, even Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pankaj Bharti Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Suhail .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) from her statement which has been annexed along with instant bail application it reflects, she is not reliable witness. 6. He further submits, however, as per prosecution, when applicant was arrested then on his pointing out one blood stained knife was also recovered but alleged knife was recovered from an open place which was accessible to all and even till date the alleged recovered knife could not be connected with the instant crime and there is no evidence that the alleged blood found on the knife was of the deceased persons. 7. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 23.04.2026 i.e. for last five months and investigation of the case has been completed. 8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits, it is a case of double murder but could not dispute the other argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 10. However, it is a case of double murder but applicant was not named in the FIR. Record further suggests that when first statement of informant was recorded then he did not disclose the name of applicant and reiterated the version of the FIR which suggests, he immediately after the incident arrived at spot and witnessed the accused persons. It reflects, subsequently when his second statement was recorded then he first time disclosed the name of applicant. 11. Further, it appears, after the statement of informant when after 19 days from the date of FIR statement of Aksha, the daughter of the deceased persons was recorded then she started claiming herself to be the eye witness and she stated against the applicant but her statement prima facie does not appear to be convincing. Further, it also reflects, she was also not the eye witness. Record further suggests, when after receiving information on Dial 112 police arrived at spot then before police also informant stated that some persons have committed the murder of the deceased persons and before police he did not disclose the name of applicant. 12. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case prosecution case prima facie appears to be doubtful. BAIL No. 33504 of 2026 2 13. Further, as per prosecution, however when applicant was arrested then on his pointing out one blood stained knife was also recovered but it reflects, the recovery of knife was made from an open place which was accessible to all. Further, the alleged knife till date could not be connected with the instant crime as there is no evidence that the blood found on the knife was of the deceased persons. 14. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 23.04.2026 i.e. for last five months and investigation of the case has been completed. 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 - Suhail 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. 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 21, 2026 AK Pandey BAIL No. 33504 of 2026 3 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad