HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29146 of 2026 Along with : 1. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29035 of 2026: Suneel @ Girdhari Versus State of U.P. Court No. - 65 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. As both the bail applications are connected and arise from the same FIR therefore both the bail applications are being disposed of by common order. 2. Heard Sri Vikas Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Rajiv Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State. 3. Both the instant bail applications have been filed seeking release of the applicants on bail in Case Crime No.310 of 2026, under Sections 103(1), 238(K) BNS, Police Station Bahjoi, District Sambhal, during pendency of the trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submit, however applicants are named in the FIR but it is a case of circumstantial evidence and FIR of the present case was lodged by police personnel. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aditya Nandan, Vikas Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rohit .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 5. He next submits, as per the FIR deceased who was nephew of applicant Sunil @ Girdhari and cousin brother of applicant Rohit, before his death on 19.06.2026 moved an application against applicants that they can eliminate him but deceased was illiterate person and it reflects, application dated 19.06.2026 allegedly moved by the deceased is fabricated one and a specific averment has been made by applicant in this regard in paragraph-30 of the bail application of applicant Sunil @ Girdhari. He next submits, State in the counter affidavit did not properly controvert this fact and did not state that deceased was literate person. 6. He further argued, except motive and application dated 19.06.2026 and statement of applicants before the police there is no other evidence against applicants on record. 7. He further argued, merely on the basis of above evidences in absence of any other corroborative it cannot be said that applicants committed the murder of deceased. 8. He further argued, applicants are not having criminal history and in the present matter they are in jail since 22.06.2026. 9. Per contra, learned AGA however opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicants. 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 applicant Sunil is the uncle of deceased while applicant Rohit is his cousin brother and as per allegation due to the property dispute they committed his murder. According to the prosecution, about two days before on 19.06.2026 deceased himself moved an application before the police that applicants may commit his murder but in paragraph-30 of the bail application moved by applicant Sunil, it has been subsequently averred that deceased BAIL No. 29146 of 2026 2 was illiterate person and in the counter affidavit State did not properly controvert this fact. In the counter affidavit State also did not disclose that actually deceased was literate person and application dated 19.06.2026 was moved by him. Considering the averment made in paragraph-30 of the bail application of applicant Sunil and counter affidavit filed by State the application dated 19.06.2026 prima facie appears to be doubtful. Further, even this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that in absence of any other corroborative evidence merely on the basis of statement of applicants recorded by the I.O. and motive prima facie it cannot be said that applicants committed murder of the deceased. 12. Further, applicants are not having any criminal history and in the present matter they are in jail since 22.06.2026 and investigation of the case has been completed and charge sheet has been filed. 13. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicants are entitled to be released on bail. 14. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, both the bail applications are allowed. 15. Let the applicants - Rohit and Suneel @ Girdhari be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless their personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicants 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. 29146 of 2026 3 facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal and anti- social activity. 16. 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. 17. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail applications and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. September 21, 2026 Shahroz BAIL No. 29146 of 2026 4 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAHROJ ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad