State of U.P v. Counsel for

2. A mention was made by Sri Anuj Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant to take up the matter on the ground that the applicant although is under treatment for Asthma but he is coffing blood due to the said illness, copy of the ultra-sonography report and prescription for the same has been produced before the Court, which is taken on record.

3. Sri Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State do not oppose the same. The Court proceeds to hear the matter.

4. Heard Sri Anuj Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

5. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant-Vijay Singh, seeking enlargement on bail during connection with Case Crime No.53 of 2025, u/s 103(1), 238 BNS, Police Station Ko. Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad.

6. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 10.3.2025 by Vinod Kumar Tomar against the applicant, Brijendra, Sanju, Shivani and Shiv Kumar alleging therein that the marriage of his sister Arti was solemnized with Sanju from which she had two children named as Chotu and Mona. Arti died some times ago under mysterious circumstances but looking to the future of the children, 2 BAIL No. 26900 of 2025 no report was lodged by him. He works outside. On 4.3.2025 people of mohalla Nunhai informed him that his niece Mona is missing from the house. When he gathered information from the persons of the locality, he came to know that his brother-in-law Sanju and his family members are missing from the house and house is locked. The people told him that in the night, the accused persons tied something to a cloth and kept and took it on the motorcycle which appeared to be the body of someone. He has suspicion that the accused persons have murdered his niece and have disappeared her dead-body. A report be lodged and action be taken.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that the applicant is the brother of Sanju, the father of the deceased Mona. It is further argued that the police during investigation recovered a CCTV footage and after viewing it, a transcript was prepared in which it is stated that the footage of 21 seconds is of 2.3.2025 of about 2.18 a.m. which shows a vehicle from which the applicant was seen alighting and walking fast towards the house. It is further argued that at 2.30 a.m., two persons were seen on a motorcycle who had taken the dead-body towards Shivala temple. It is further argued that Parul, the sister of the applicant was interrogated during investigation who states of getting a call from Vijay, the present applicant on 1.3.2025 at about 3 p.m. wherein he called her immediately to the house and when she reached there, she found Monika @ Mona to be lying on bed and the accused persons gagged her mouth not to shout and cry otherwise they would be implicated in the matter and then they decided to cremate the dead- body and on the suggestion of Ayush Tiwary, the friend of her brother, the dead-body was taken and thrown in a river. It is further argued that the investigation in the matter has concluded and the charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and co-accused Brijendra Singh. It is further argued that co-accused Brijendra Singh has been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.6.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.18596 of 2025, copy of the same is annexed as Annexure No.8 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application. It is further argued that applicant has no motive at all to commit the aforesaid offence and the prosecution remains silent with regards to the motive of the incident. The present case is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no eye-witness to the murder. It has also been pointed out that 3 BAIL No. 26900 of 2025 the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 35 of the affidavit and is in jail since 8.4.2025.

8. Per contra learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the FIR and also in the statement of Smt. Parul, the sister of the applicant and has been assigned the role of active participation in the matter. It is further submitted that the informant Vinod Kumar Tomar was interrogated by the police who has stated that in his application given to the police due to confusion, he has mentioned the date as 4.3.2025 whereas the incident in the matter is of 1/2.3.2025. In any event of the matter, the date of incident as being committed on 1/2.3.2025 is not disputed by the applicant inasmuch as the C.C.T.V. footage also shows the date and time of the movement of the accused and the dead-body. While placing para 24 and 25 of the affidavit in support of bail application, learned counsel for the first informant has submitted that the applicant has admitted the death of the deceased and has stated that she died by committing suicide and she was found in hanging position after which the family members were called over on phone and when they came there, the dead-body was taken to Ganga river and last rites were performed. Para 25 of the affidavit further states that all the family members and relatives were present on the Ghatiya Ghat on the Bank of Ganga river at the time of last rituals of deceased Mona at around 4 a.m. in the morning which is proved through the surveillance report, as such at the time of cremation of the body of the deceased, the presence of the applicant is thus admitted therein. It is further submitted that clothes of the deceased were recovered by the police on the pointing out of the applicant from the bank of the river which were sealed under sand and recovery memo of the same has been prepared on 21.4.2025, copy of the same is annexed as annexure no.6 to the affidavit in support of bail application, as such the fact that the applicant was present at the place of occurrence and also the dead- body was taken in his presence and cremated is not disputed. The present bail application be thus dismissed.

9. Learned counsel for the State also opposed the prayer for bail vehemently and argued that there is no evidence coming forward to show that the deceased committed suicide. The death is unnatural. It is further submitted that no authorities or persons were informed regarding the death of the 4 BAIL No. 26900 of 2025 deceased. It is further submitted that although charge-sheet in the matter has been submitted against the applicant and co-accused Brijendra Singh and so far as other co-accused persons are concerned, the investigation is still pending. Since the investigation is pending, the process of collection of evidence is still going on and thus release of the applicant at this stage is not proper.

10. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is the brother of father of the deceased. The deceased died in the house where the applicant was present. The dead-body of the deceased and her cremation was done in the presence and knowledge and participation of the applicant in a clandestine manner. There is no evidence on record to show as to how the deceased died. The statement of Smt. Parul cast allegations against the applicant also. The clothes of the deceased were recovered on the pointing out of the applicant from the bank of river which was hidden under the sand. Co-accused Brijendra who has been granted bail, is the grand-father of the deceased and one of the considerations before the Court was that he is an old man aged about 75 years and suffering from several old age diseases. The applicant cannot thus claim parity from him. Since the investigation in so far as the other co- accused persons are concerned, is still pending, release of the applicant on bail at this stage will not be proper.

11. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. September 26, 2025 Gaurav Kuls (Samit Gopal,J.) GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. A mention was made by Sri Anuj Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant to take up the matter on the ground that the applicant although is under treatment for Asthma but he is coffing blood due to the said illness, copy of the ultra-sonography report and prescription for the same has been produced before the Court, which is taken on record.

3. Sri Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State do not oppose the same. The Court proceeds to hear the matter.

4. Heard Sri Anuj Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

5. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant-Vijay Singh, seeking enlargement on bail during connection with Case Crime No.53 of 2025, u/s 103(1), 238 BNS, Police Station Ko. Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad.

6. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 10.3.2025 by Vinod Kumar Tomar against the applicant, Brijendra, Sanju, Shivani and Shiv Kumar alleging therein that the marriage of his sister Arti was solemnized with Sanju from which she had two children named as Chotu and Mona. Arti died some times ago under mysterious circumstances but looking to the future of the children, 2 BAIL No. 26900 of 2025 no report was lodged by him. He works outside. On 4.3.2025 people of mohalla Nunhai informed him that his niece Mona is missing from the house. When he gathered information from the persons of the locality, he came to know that his brother-in-law Sanju and his family members are missing from the house and house is locked. The people told him that in the night, the accused persons tied something to a cloth and kept and took it on the motorcycle which appeared to be the body of someone. He has suspicion that the accused persons have murdered his niece and have disappeared her dead-body. A report be lodged and action be taken.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that the applicant is the brother of Sanju, the father of the deceased Mona. It is further argued that the police during investigation recovered a CCTV footage and after viewing it, a transcript was prepared in which it is stated that the footage of 21 seconds is of 2.3.2025 of about 2.18 a.m. which shows a vehicle from which the applicant was seen alighting and walking fast towards the house. It is further argued that at 2.30 a.m., two persons were seen on a motorcycle who had taken the dead-body towards Shivala temple. It is further argued that Parul, the sister of the applicant was interrogated during investigation who states of getting a call from Vijay, the present applicant on 1.3.2025 at about 3 p.m. wherein he called her immediately to the house and when she reached there, she found Monika @ Mona to be lying on bed and the accused persons gagged her mouth not to shout and cry otherwise they would be implicated in the matter and then they decided to cremate the dead- body and on the suggestion of Ayush Tiwary, the friend of her brother, the dead-body was taken and thrown in a river. It is further argued that the investigation in the matter has concluded and the charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and co-accused Brijendra Singh. It is further argued that co-accused Brijendra Singh has been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.6.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.18596 of 2025, copy of the same is annexed as Annexure No.8 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application. It is further argued that applicant has no motive at all to commit the aforesaid offence and the prosecution remains silent with regards to the motive of the incident. The present case is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no eye-witness to the murder. It has also been pointed out that 3 BAIL No. 26900 of 2025 the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 35 of the affidavit and is in jail since 8.4.2025.

8. Per contra learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the FIR and also in the statement of Smt. Parul, the sister of the applicant and has been assigned the role of active participation in the matter. It is further submitted that the informant Vinod Kumar Tomar was interrogated by the police who has stated that in his application given to the police due to confusion, he has mentioned the date as 4.3.2025 whereas the incident in the matter is of 1/2.3.2025. In any event of the matter, the date of incident as being committed on 1/2.3.2025 is not disputed by the applicant inasmuch as the C.C.T.V. footage also shows the date and time of the movement of the accused and the dead-body. While placing para 24 and 25 of the affidavit in support of bail application, learned counsel for the first informant has submitted that the applicant has admitted the death of the deceased and has stated that she died by committing suicide and she was found in hanging position after which the family members were called over on phone and when they came there, the dead-body was taken to Ganga river and last rites were performed. Para 25 of the affidavit further states that all the family members and relatives were present on the Ghatiya Ghat on the Bank of Ganga river at the time of last rituals of deceased Mona at around 4 a.m. in the morning which is proved through the surveillance report, as such at the time of cremation of the body of the deceased, the presence of the applicant is thus admitted therein. It is further submitted that clothes of the deceased were recovered by the police on the pointing out of the applicant from the bank of the river which were sealed under sand and recovery memo of the same has been prepared on 21.4.2025, copy of the same is annexed as annexure no.6 to the affidavit in support of bail application, as such the fact that the applicant was present at the place of occurrence and also the dead- body was taken in his presence and cremated is not disputed. The present bail application be thus dismissed.

9. Learned counsel for the State also opposed the prayer for bail vehemently and argued that there is no evidence coming forward to show that the deceased committed suicide. The death is unnatural. It is further submitted that no authorities or persons were informed regarding the death of the 4 BAIL No. 26900 of 2025 deceased. It is further submitted that although charge-sheet in the matter has been submitted against the applicant and co-accused Brijendra Singh and so far as other co-accused persons are concerned, the investigation is still pending. Since the investigation is pending, the process of collection of evidence is still going on and thus release of the applicant at this stage is not proper.

10. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is the brother of father of the deceased. The deceased died in the house where the applicant was present. The dead-body of the deceased and her cremation was done in the presence and knowledge and participation of the applicant in a clandestine manner. There is no evidence on record to show as to how the deceased died. The statement of Smt. Parul cast allegations against the applicant also. The clothes of the deceased were recovered on the pointing out of the applicant from the bank of river which was hidden under the sand. Co-accused Brijendra who has been granted bail, is the grand-father of the deceased and one of the considerations before the Court was that he is an old man aged about 75 years and suffering from several old age diseases. The applicant cannot thus claim parity from him. Since the investigation in so far as the other co- accused persons are concerned, is still pending, release of the applicant on bail at this stage will not be proper.

11. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. September 26, 2025 Gaurav Kuls (Samit Gopal,J.) GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad