High Court · 2025

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged against unknown person but during investigation, on the basis of last seen evidence, applicant has been made accused in the present matter along with three others. He further submitted that as per statements of two eye-witnesses namely Ravi and Harveer, applicant was last seen along with the deceased and other co-accused persons in a Wagon-R vehicle and same vehicle, according to prosecution, was spotted in the CCTV footage but from the CCTV footage, it could not be reflected that applicant was sitting in the vehicle along with others including deceased.

5. He further submitted that however, as per prosecution, applicant was last seen along with the deceased on 19.01.2025 at about 17:20 hours but dead body of the deceased was recovered on

23.01.2025 i.e. after four days and post-mortem of the deceased was conducted on 24.01.2025 at about 2:00 a.m. in the night and as per post-mortem report, estimated time of death of the deceased is about 2 to 4 days, therefore, merely on the basis of above last seen evidence, it cannot be prima facie said that applicant and other accused persons committed his murder.

6. He further submitted that even bail applications of two co- accused Sajid and Satish, have been allowed by this Court and their bail orders have been annexed as Annexure No. 20 and 21 and as far as facts of the case are concerned, case of applicant is at par with them as according to prosecution, they were also last seen along with the deceased on 19.01.2025.

7. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 19.01.2025.

8. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that however, it is a case of circumstantial evidence but there is cogent evidence of last seen against the applicant and others. They further submitted that while granting bail to co-accused Sajid and Satish, the evidence of last seen could not be properly discussed as the same could not be properly placed before this Court.

9. They further submitted that as there is electronic evidence of last seen against the applicant, therefore, it cannot be said that applicant is innocent.

10. They further submitted that some other witnesses also stated that applicant was inside the vehicle, in which, deceased was sitting and therefore considering all these facts, applicant should not be released on bail.

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

12. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and FIR of the present case was lodged against unknown person but it reflects after lodgment of the FIR, when informant moved an application then applicant and three others have been made accused in the present matter.

13. Record further suggests that applicant was seen along with the deceased in the vehicle on 19.01.2025 at about 17:20 hours and according to prosecution witnesses, deceased was in the vehicle along with applicant and other accused persons including co- accused Sajid and Satish and even from the CCTV footage, it also reflects, the same vehicle was spotted but from the CCTV footage, it could not be reflected that who was sitting in the vehicle.

14. Further, from the post-mortem report, it reflects, it was conducted on 24.01.2025 at about 2:00 a.m. in the night and according to it, deceased died about 2 to 4 days before. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that as applicant was last seen along with the deceased on 19.01.2025 at about 17:20 hours, therefore, there is no proximity of time between last seen evidence and estimated time of death of the deceased, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

15. Further, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that prima facie, at this stage, merely on the basis of above evidence, it cannot be said that applicant involved in present crime.

16. Further, similarly placed to co-accused Satish and Sajid have already been released on bail by this Court.

17. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 29.01.2025.

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

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

20. Let the applicant- Pradeep @ Sonu 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.

21. 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.

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. Order Date :- 16.5.2025/KK Patel KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged against unknown person but during investigation, on the basis of last seen evidence, applicant has been made accused in the present matter along with three others. He further submitted that as per statements of two eye-witnesses namely Ravi and Harveer, applicant was last seen along with the deceased and other co-accused persons in a Wagon-R vehicle and same vehicle, according to prosecution, was spotted in the CCTV footage but from the CCTV footage, it could not be reflected that applicant was sitting in the vehicle along with others including deceased.

5. He further submitted that however, as per prosecution, applicant was last seen along with the deceased on 19.01.2025 at about 17:20 hours but dead body of the deceased was recovered on

23.01.2025 i.e. after four days and post-mortem of the deceased was conducted on 24.01.2025 at about 2:00 a.m. in the night and as per post-mortem report, estimated time of death of the deceased is about 2 to 4 days, therefore, merely on the basis of above last seen evidence, it cannot be prima facie said that applicant and other accused persons committed his murder.

6. He further submitted that even bail applications of two co- accused Sajid and Satish, have been allowed by this Court and their bail orders have been annexed as Annexure No. 20 and 21 and as far as facts of the case are concerned, case of applicant is at par with them as according to prosecution, they were also last seen along with the deceased on 19.01.2025.

7. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 19.01.2025.

8. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that however, it is a case of circumstantial evidence but there is cogent evidence of last seen against the applicant and others. They further submitted that while granting bail to co-accused Sajid and Satish, the evidence of last seen could not be properly discussed as the same could not be properly placed before this Court.

9. They further submitted that as there is electronic evidence of last seen against the applicant, therefore, it cannot be said that applicant is innocent.

10. They further submitted that some other witnesses also stated that applicant was inside the vehicle, in which, deceased was sitting and therefore considering all these facts, applicant should not be released on bail.

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

12. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and FIR of the present case was lodged against unknown person but it reflects after lodgment of the FIR, when informant moved an application then applicant and three others have been made accused in the present matter.

13. Record further suggests that applicant was seen along with the deceased in the vehicle on 19.01.2025 at about 17:20 hours and according to prosecution witnesses, deceased was in the vehicle along with applicant and other accused persons including co- accused Sajid and Satish and even from the CCTV footage, it also reflects, the same vehicle was spotted but from the CCTV footage, it could not be reflected that who was sitting in the vehicle.

14. Further, from the post-mortem report, it reflects, it was conducted on 24.01.2025 at about 2:00 a.m. in the night and according to it, deceased died about 2 to 4 days before. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that as applicant was last seen along with the deceased on 19.01.2025 at about 17:20 hours, therefore, there is no proximity of time between last seen evidence and estimated time of death of the deceased, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

15. Further, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that prima facie, at this stage, merely on the basis of above evidence, it cannot be said that applicant involved in present crime.

16. Further, similarly placed to co-accused Satish and Sajid have already been released on bail by this Court.

17. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 29.01.2025.

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

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

20. Let the applicant- Pradeep @ Sonu 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.

21. 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.

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. Order Date :- 16.5.2025/KK Patel KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad