High Court · 2025

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 31.5.2024 by maternal uncle of the applicant against him and according to the FIR applicant was alone along with his father in the house and he after committing his murder ran away from the house.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is the son of the deceased and on the basis of false allegation he has been made accused in the present matter.

5. She further submits that admittedly informant was not an eye witness and however during investigation two witnesses, namely, Indra Devi and Pinky Devi came forward and stated before the Investigating Officer that they witnessed the applicant while he was running from the roof but their statements were recorded after about two weeks.

6. She further submits that during investigation Investigating Officer failed to collect any cogent evidence that at the time of incident applicant was present in his house.

7. She further submits that on the date of alleged incident applicant was not in his house as he had gone to the house of his wife along with his wife and this fact is evident from the statement of PW-1, i.e., informant of the case recorded before the trial court which has been annexed along with the instant bail application.

8. She further submits that from the statement of the informant recorded before the trial court it is quite clear that applicant was not present in his house at the time of incident and, therefore, it appears that in the absence of applicant some unknown persons committed the murder of his father.

9. She further submits that even during trial both the witnesses of last seen evidence Pinky Devi and Indra Devi have been declared hostile and their statements have also been annexed along with the instant bail application.

10. She further submits that no cogent evidence is left against the applicant which can connect with the instant crime.

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

31.5.2024, i.e., for the last more than nine months.

12. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant is the sole accused in the present matter and he is the son of the deceased and as per FIR he was alone along with his father, i.e., the deceased in the house but he could not dispute the fact that during trial informant categorically stated in his statement that at the time of incident applicant was not present in his home.

13. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that however two witnesses, namely, Indra Devi and Pinky Devi during investigation stated that they witnessed the applicant while after the incident he was running from the roof but during trial both the witnesses have been declared hostile.

14. He further could not dispute the fact that after the statements of above witnesses no other cogent evidence is left against the applicant.

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

16. However, as per allegation made in the FIR applicant committed the murder of his father and thereafter he ran away from his house and during investigation two witnesses, namely, Indra Devi and Pinky Devi also informed the Investigating Officer that they witnessed the applicant while he was running from his house through roof but both these witnesses during trial have been declared hostile as they did not support the prosecution case.

17. Further, however, as per the version of the FIR applicant was alone in the house along with his father, i.e., deceased but when the statement of the informant was recorded by the trial court during trial then in his statement he categorically stated that at the time of incident applicant was not in his home as he had gone to the house of his wife along with her.

18. Record further suggests that after the statements of above witnesses no cogent evidence is left against the applicant which can show that at the time of incident he was along with his father inside the house and considering this fact, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that it appears, in the absence of the applicant some unknown persons committed the murder of his father cannot be completely brushed aside at this stage.

19. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 31.5.2024, i.e., for the last more than nine months.

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

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

22. Let the applicant-Amit Kumar Rathore 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.

23. 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.

24. 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 :- 4.3.2025/SKM SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 31.5.2024 by maternal uncle of the applicant against him and according to the FIR applicant was alone along with his father in the house and he after committing his murder ran away from the house.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is the son of the deceased and on the basis of false allegation he has been made accused in the present matter.

5. She further submits that admittedly informant was not an eye witness and however during investigation two witnesses, namely, Indra Devi and Pinky Devi came forward and stated before the Investigating Officer that they witnessed the applicant while he was running from the roof but their statements were recorded after about two weeks.

6. She further submits that during investigation Investigating Officer failed to collect any cogent evidence that at the time of incident applicant was present in his house.

7. She further submits that on the date of alleged incident applicant was not in his house as he had gone to the house of his wife along with his wife and this fact is evident from the statement of PW-1, i.e., informant of the case recorded before the trial court which has been annexed along with the instant bail application.

8. She further submits that from the statement of the informant recorded before the trial court it is quite clear that applicant was not present in his house at the time of incident and, therefore, it appears that in the absence of applicant some unknown persons committed the murder of his father.

9. She further submits that even during trial both the witnesses of last seen evidence Pinky Devi and Indra Devi have been declared hostile and their statements have also been annexed along with the instant bail application.

10. She further submits that no cogent evidence is left against the applicant which can connect with the instant crime.

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

31.5.2024, i.e., for the last more than nine months.

12. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant is the sole accused in the present matter and he is the son of the deceased and as per FIR he was alone along with his father, i.e., the deceased in the house but he could not dispute the fact that during trial informant categorically stated in his statement that at the time of incident applicant was not present in his home.

13. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that however two witnesses, namely, Indra Devi and Pinky Devi during investigation stated that they witnessed the applicant while after the incident he was running from the roof but during trial both the witnesses have been declared hostile.

14. He further could not dispute the fact that after the statements of above witnesses no other cogent evidence is left against the applicant.

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

16. However, as per allegation made in the FIR applicant committed the murder of his father and thereafter he ran away from his house and during investigation two witnesses, namely, Indra Devi and Pinky Devi also informed the Investigating Officer that they witnessed the applicant while he was running from his house through roof but both these witnesses during trial have been declared hostile as they did not support the prosecution case.

17. Further, however, as per the version of the FIR applicant was alone in the house along with his father, i.e., deceased but when the statement of the informant was recorded by the trial court during trial then in his statement he categorically stated that at the time of incident applicant was not in his home as he had gone to the house of his wife along with her.

18. Record further suggests that after the statements of above witnesses no cogent evidence is left against the applicant which can show that at the time of incident he was along with his father inside the house and considering this fact, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that it appears, in the absence of the applicant some unknown persons committed the murder of his father cannot be completely brushed aside at this stage.

19. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 31.5.2024, i.e., for the last more than nine months.

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

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

22. Let the applicant-Amit Kumar Rathore 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.

23. 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.

24. 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 :- 4.3.2025/SKM SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad