High Court · 2025

applicant is named in the FIR but admittedly no one could see the real incident and as per allegation made in the FIR, applicant had taken the deceased from his house and subsequently his dead-body was recovered but entire allegation levelled against applicant is totally false.

4. He further submits that except the bald and verbal allegation that applicant had taken the deceased from his house, there is no other evidence in this regard on record as during investigation none of the witness could state to the I.O. that he witnessed the applicant alongwith the deceased.

5. He further submits that however, from perusal of the statements of the two witnesses Sanjay Singh Bhadauriaya and Ram Pal, which have been annexed alongwith the instant bail application, it reflects, according to them, applicant and co-accused Raju Singh Chauhan and Anoop Singh @ Kallu were trying to conceal the dead-body of the deceased but even date has not been mentioned by these witnesses and therefore, no reliance can be placed on such statements.

6. He further submits that however, as per prosecution when applicant was arrested then from his possession mobile phone of the deceased was recovered but entire recovery is false and baseless.

7. He further submits that merely on the basis of above recovery, without any other corroborative evidence, it cannot be said that applicant involved in commission of the murder of the deceased.

8. He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since

23.11.2024.

9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit that apart from the recovery of the mobile phone of the deceased from the possession of the applicant and the evidence of above two witnesses, there is also evidence against the applicant that he had taken the deceased from his house and thereafter his dead-body was recovered, therefore, it cannot be said that there is no evidence against the applicant on record but they could not dispute the fact that none of the witness during investigaiton could state that applicant was last seen alongwith the deceased.

10. They further could not dispute the fact that however, as per the FIR on 20.11.2024 applicant had taken the deceased and thereafter deceased did not return but FIR of the present case was lodged on

22.11.2024 after recovery of his dead-body.

11. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case.

12. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and as per prosecution following circumstances are against the applicant:- (i) applicant had taken the deceased from his house and subsequently his dead- body was recovered, (ii) as per the statements of two witnesses namely Sanjay Singh Bhadauriaya and Ram Pal, applicant and two others were trying to conceal the dead-body of the deceased and (iii) from the possession of the applicant, mobile phone of the deceased was recovered.

13. As far as circumstance no.1 is concerned, from the record, it could not be reflected that any witness could state that applicant was last seen alongwith the deceased and further, FIR of the present case was lodged after two days from the alleged date when applicant allegedly taken the deceased from his house, therefore, prima-facie, this allegation appears to be doubtful.

14. As far as circumstance no.2 is concerned, the statements of above two witnesses Sanjay Singh Bhadauriay and Ram Pal do not appear to be convincing.

15. As far as circumstance no.3 is concerned, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that without any other corroborative evidence, at this stage, merely on the basis of recovery of mobile phone of the deceased from the possession of the applicant, it cannot be said that he involved in commission of the murder of the deceased.

16. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 23.11.2024.

17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

19. Let the applicant- Vimal Tiwari, 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.

20. 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.

21. 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. Order Date :- 30.4.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

applicant is named in the FIR but admittedly no one could see the real incident and as per allegation made in the FIR, applicant had taken the deceased from his house and subsequently his dead-body was recovered but entire allegation levelled against applicant is totally false.

4. He further submits that except the bald and verbal allegation that applicant had taken the deceased from his house, there is no other evidence in this regard on record as during investigation none of the witness could state to the I.O. that he witnessed the applicant alongwith the deceased.

5. He further submits that however, from perusal of the statements of the two witnesses Sanjay Singh Bhadauriaya and Ram Pal, which have been annexed alongwith the instant bail application, it reflects, according to them, applicant and co-accused Raju Singh Chauhan and Anoop Singh @ Kallu were trying to conceal the dead-body of the deceased but even date has not been mentioned by these witnesses and therefore, no reliance can be placed on such statements.

6. He further submits that however, as per prosecution when applicant was arrested then from his possession mobile phone of the deceased was recovered but entire recovery is false and baseless.

7. He further submits that merely on the basis of above recovery, without any other corroborative evidence, it cannot be said that applicant involved in commission of the murder of the deceased.

8. He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since

23.11.2024.

9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit that apart from the recovery of the mobile phone of the deceased from the possession of the applicant and the evidence of above two witnesses, there is also evidence against the applicant that he had taken the deceased from his house and thereafter his dead-body was recovered, therefore, it cannot be said that there is no evidence against the applicant on record but they could not dispute the fact that none of the witness during investigaiton could state that applicant was last seen alongwith the deceased.

10. They further could not dispute the fact that however, as per the FIR on 20.11.2024 applicant had taken the deceased and thereafter deceased did not return but FIR of the present case was lodged on

22.11.2024 after recovery of his dead-body.

11. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case.

12. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and as per prosecution following circumstances are against the applicant:- (i) applicant had taken the deceased from his house and subsequently his dead- body was recovered, (ii) as per the statements of two witnesses namely Sanjay Singh Bhadauriaya and Ram Pal, applicant and two others were trying to conceal the dead-body of the deceased and (iii) from the possession of the applicant, mobile phone of the deceased was recovered.

13. As far as circumstance no.1 is concerned, from the record, it could not be reflected that any witness could state that applicant was last seen alongwith the deceased and further, FIR of the present case was lodged after two days from the alleged date when applicant allegedly taken the deceased from his house, therefore, prima-facie, this allegation appears to be doubtful.

14. As far as circumstance no.2 is concerned, the statements of above two witnesses Sanjay Singh Bhadauriay and Ram Pal do not appear to be convincing.

15. As far as circumstance no.3 is concerned, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that without any other corroborative evidence, at this stage, merely on the basis of recovery of mobile phone of the deceased from the possession of the applicant, it cannot be said that he involved in commission of the murder of the deceased.

16. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 23.11.2024.

17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

19. Let the applicant- Vimal Tiwari, 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.

20. 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.

21. 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. Order Date :- 30.4.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad