High Court

2. Heard Sri Yogesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 31 of 2025, under Sections 140(1) B.N.S., Police Station- Jamalpur, District- Mirzapur, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, brother of the informant was missing since 20.02.2025 at about 04:30 PM when he had left his house for a birthday party at village Odi, Police Station-Jamalpur, District- Mirzapur. As the brother of the informant could not be traced during the search, a missing person report was lodged.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the applicants are absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have nothing to do with the said offence. The said application does not mention the names of the applicants, but, subsequently the FIR has been instituted after a delay of about 13 days on 04.03.2025 and the names of the applicants and co- accused Aditya Patel find mention in it.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants further argued that the applicants have been made accused on the basis of suspicion only. The only evidence against against the applicants is their extra judicial confession before the informant whereby applicants are stated to have confessed having put the deceased to death and thrown him from the river Ganges bridge, Mirzapur.

7. Learned counsel stated that applicants were a friend of deceased person and have nothing to do with the said offence. The deceased had left from Railway Station, Chunar for Mumbai for some job and applicants had dropped him there. The CDR reports of the mobile phone of the deceased person and applicant along with the co-accused person Aditya Patel indicate that they all were present on Station Road, Mohalla-Dargah Sharif, Chunar.

8. Learned counsel has further stated that subsequently another statement was recorded of the informant on 06.03.2025 by the Investigating Officer and he had stated that another 12 year boy Sonu had accompanied the applicants and the deceased person but the statement of said Sonu does not reveal that the applicants or any other person had committed any offence whatsoever.

9. It is further argued that there is no motive alleged in the said offence but the motive has been created subsequently in the third supplementary statement of the informant which was recorded on 17.05.2025 at a belated stage by the Investigating Officer whereby the informant had stated that the applicants had suspected that applicant No.1's brother has been put to death by the deceased person although the applicant No.1's brother had expired in an accident.

10. Learned counsel has placed much reliance on the statement of one Ankit Chauhan who had gone along with the deceased brother of the applicant No.1 at that time and had categorically stated that the brother of the applicant No.1 had expired due to accidental injury. Thus the motive stands falsified.

11. Learned counsel has further stated that the CCTV footage of several places were obviously obtained and even the deceased was seen with applicants at the petrol pump and one another place but no CCTV footage of the bridge on the river Ganges has been fetched, however, there are CCTV cameras installed at the said bridge from where the applicants are alleged to have thrown the deceased person in river Ganges. The said CCTV footage has deliberately been not taken into possession just to make the applicants accused in the instant case.

12. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the motive does not carry any force and there is no other evidence against the applicants except the extra judicial confessional statement of informant recorded under Section 22 of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam and the informant is an interested witness.

13. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicants that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicants. The applicants are languishing in jail since 05.03.2025 and they are ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail.

14. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the delay in lodging of the FIR, the motive for the said offence has subsequently come up in the third supplementary statement of the informant which was recorded on 17.05.2025 at a belated stage coupled with the fact that no CCTV footage of the said bridge could be obtained despite there being CCTV cameras installed and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

16. Let the applicants- Abhishek Pandey and Aditya Patel, who are involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicants shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicants shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

17. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

18. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 29.7.2025 Karan (Justice Krishan Pahal)

2. Heard Sri Yogesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 31 of 2025, under Sections 140(1) B.N.S., Police Station- Jamalpur, District- Mirzapur, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, brother of the informant was missing since 20.02.2025 at about 04:30 PM when he had left his house for a birthday party at village Odi, Police Station-Jamalpur, District- Mirzapur. As the brother of the informant could not be traced during the search, a missing person report was lodged.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the applicants are absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have nothing to do with the said offence. The said application does not mention the names of the applicants, but, subsequently the FIR has been instituted after a delay of about 13 days on 04.03.2025 and the names of the applicants and co- accused Aditya Patel find mention in it.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants further argued that the applicants have been made accused on the basis of suspicion only. The only evidence against against the applicants is their extra judicial confession before the informant whereby applicants are stated to have confessed having put the deceased to death and thrown him from the river Ganges bridge, Mirzapur.

7. Learned counsel stated that applicants were a friend of deceased person and have nothing to do with the said offence. The deceased had left from Railway Station, Chunar for Mumbai for some job and applicants had dropped him there. The CDR reports of the mobile phone of the deceased person and applicant along with the co-accused person Aditya Patel indicate that they all were present on Station Road, Mohalla-Dargah Sharif, Chunar.

8. Learned counsel has further stated that subsequently another statement was recorded of the informant on 06.03.2025 by the Investigating Officer and he had stated that another 12 year boy Sonu had accompanied the applicants and the deceased person but the statement of said Sonu does not reveal that the applicants or any other person had committed any offence whatsoever.

9. It is further argued that there is no motive alleged in the said offence but the motive has been created subsequently in the third supplementary statement of the informant which was recorded on 17.05.2025 at a belated stage by the Investigating Officer whereby the informant had stated that the applicants had suspected that applicant No.1's brother has been put to death by the deceased person although the applicant No.1's brother had expired in an accident.

10. Learned counsel has placed much reliance on the statement of one Ankit Chauhan who had gone along with the deceased brother of the applicant No.1 at that time and had categorically stated that the brother of the applicant No.1 had expired due to accidental injury. Thus the motive stands falsified.

11. Learned counsel has further stated that the CCTV footage of several places were obviously obtained and even the deceased was seen with applicants at the petrol pump and one another place but no CCTV footage of the bridge on the river Ganges has been fetched, however, there are CCTV cameras installed at the said bridge from where the applicants are alleged to have thrown the deceased person in river Ganges. The said CCTV footage has deliberately been not taken into possession just to make the applicants accused in the instant case.

12. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the motive does not carry any force and there is no other evidence against the applicants except the extra judicial confessional statement of informant recorded under Section 22 of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam and the informant is an interested witness.

13. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicants that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicants. The applicants are languishing in jail since 05.03.2025 and they are ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail.

14. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the delay in lodging of the FIR, the motive for the said offence has subsequently come up in the third supplementary statement of the informant which was recorded on 17.05.2025 at a belated stage coupled with the fact that no CCTV footage of the said bridge could be obtained despite there being CCTV cameras installed and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

16. Let the applicants- Abhishek Pandey and Aditya Patel, who are involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicants shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicants shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

17. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

18. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 29.7.2025 Karan (Justice Krishan Pahal)