HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34533 of 2026 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shatrughan Yadav, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0978 of 2025, under Sections 103(1) BNS, Police Station Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however applicant is named in the FIR alongwith one another and according to the FIR applicant and another accused committed the murder of the deceased but informant of the case was not the eye witness and even FIR of the present case was lodged after 11 days through the information given by Ravi Kumar. 4. He further submitted that when the statement of witness Ravi Kumar was recorded then he categorically stated that he arrived at spot after the incident and therefore, he also did not witness the real incident. 5. He further submitted that however during investigation Investigating Officer recorded the statement of one Pramod who claimed himself to be eye witness and he stated that applicant and co-accused were beating the deceased due to which he sustained injuries and died but statement of this witness was recorded after 12 days and therefore, statement of this witness also does not appear to be reliable one. 6. He further submitted that however during investigation Investigating Officer procured CCTV footage of the alleged incident and from its perusal Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Dharmveer Alias Dharmi .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) it reflects, two persons were beating the deceased but from the footage it could not be reflected that applicant was visible in the footage. He next submits, however during investigation Investigating Officer very casually mentioned in the case diary that in the footage applicant alongwith another accused was beating the deceased but there is no cogent evidence in this regard. 7. He further submitted that prima facie, there is no cogent evidence which can suggest that applicant made assault upon the deceased. 8. He further submitted that applicant is having no previous criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 25.10.2025 i.e. for last 11 months. 9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that however informant was not the eye witness but from the statement of eye witness Pramod and CCTV footage it reflects, applicant alongwith co- accused beaten the deceased. 10. He further submitted that however when the extract of the footage was noted by the Investigating Officer in the case diary then at that time he only mentioned that two persons were beating the deceased but during investigation it was revealed, applicant alongwith co-accused was beating the deceased and considering the statement of the eye witness Pramod and CCTV footage of the incident prima facie it cannot be said that applicant is innocent. 11. He further submitted that even post mortem report suggests that deceased sustained as many as 16 injuries and therefore, it reflects, he was badly beaten. 12. He further submitted that therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, instant bail application may be dismissed. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 14. However, there is delay of 11 days in lodging the FIR of the present case but informant of the case was not the eye witness. 15. Further from the record, it reflects, witness Pramod was eye witness and BAIL No. 34533 of 2026 2 according to him applicant and co-accused were beating the deceased. 16. Further, apart from the statement of eye-witness Pramod it reflects, during investigation Investigating Officer recovered a CCTV footage of the incident and from the CCTV footage it reflects, two persons were beating the deceased and subsequently on the basis of CCTV footage, their identity was disclosed as applicant and co-accused Deshpal. 17. Further, however statement of eye witness Pramod was recorded after 12 days but considering the CCTV footage, prima facie, it cannot be said that applicant is innocent. 18. Further, even post mortem report suggests that deceased sustained as many as 16 injuries, therefore, it reflects, he was badly beaten. 19. Further, however, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 25.10.2025 i.e. for last 11 months but considering the nature of allegations levelled against him and post mortem report of the deceased, in view of this Court, it is not proper to release him on bail merely on this ground. 20. 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. 21. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands rejected. 22. 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 28, 2026 Ankita BAIL No. 34533 of 2026 3 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad