High Court · 2025

Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S. B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.40 of 2023, under Sections 302, 201, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Hathras Kotwali, District Hathras, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged against applicant and two others and according to the FIR in the absence of the informant his wife had gone alongwith applicant, who was her brother-in-law (jija) and when informant searched her then villagers informed him that his wife had gone alongwith the applicant and other accused persons on motorcycle and at about 4:30 p.m. her dead-body was found.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and only evidence against the applicant is of last seen.

6. He further submits that during investigation when statement of one Rashid was recorded then he stated in his statement before the I.O. that he witnessed the applicant and co-accused Pramod while they were going alongwith deceased on the motorcycle but during trial, he has been declared hostile as he did not support the prosecution case and his statement recorded before the trial court has been annexed at page 55 of the paper book.

7. He further submits that however, as per prosecution, during investigation, a CCTV Footage was also procured and from its perusal, it reflects that applicant was sitting on the motorcycle alongwith the deceased and co-accused Pramod but from the CCTV Footage, it could not be reflected that when applicant was last seen alongwith deceased and co-accused Pramod.

8. He further submits that merely on the basis of evidence of last seen, it cannot be said that applicant committed the murder of the deceased unless there is some proximity between time of death of the deceased and time when applicant was last seen and in the absence of date and time when the applicant was last seen alongwith the deceased and co-accused Pramod, it cannnot be said that applicant committed the murder of the deceased.

9. He further submits that however, apart from the present case, applicant was having criminal history of one another case but that case relates to Gambling Act.

10. He further submits that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 27.02.2023 i.e. for last more than two years.

11. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that from the CCTV Footage, it is quite apparent that applicant was on the motorcycle alongiwth co-accused Pramod and deceased and therefore, it cannot be said that there is no cogent evidence against the applicant on record but he fairly conceded, except the evidence of last seen, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record and from the CCTV Footage, it could not be reflected that what was date and time when applicant was allegedly last seen alongwith the deceased.

12. He further could not not dispute the fact that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and applicant is in jail in the present matter for last more than two years.

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

14. However, applicant is brother-in-law (jija) of the deceased and there is evidence of last seen against him and witness Rashid stated during investigation that he witnessed the applicant alongwith deceased and co-accused Pramod but during trial he has been declared hostile.

15. Further, however, there is also a CCTV Footage and from its perusal, it reflects that applicant was last seen alongwith deceased and co-accused Pramod while he was sitting on the motorcycle alongwith them but from the details of the CCTV Footage, it could not be reflected that when applicant was witnessed alongwith deceased and co-accused Pramod as neither date nor time could be disclosed from the CCTV Footage. Consideirng this fact, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that merley on the basis of such footage of CCTV, applicant cannot be connected with the instant crime as it cannot be said that he committed the murder of the deceased.

16. Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant was having criminal history of one another case but that case relates to Gambling Act.

17. Further, applicant is in jail in the present matter since

27.02.2023 i.e. for last more than two years.

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

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

20. Let the applicant- Bantu, 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 :- 11.3.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S. B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.40 of 2023, under Sections 302, 201, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Hathras Kotwali, District Hathras, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged against applicant and two others and according to the FIR in the absence of the informant his wife had gone alongwith applicant, who was her brother-in-law (jija) and when informant searched her then villagers informed him that his wife had gone alongwith the applicant and other accused persons on motorcycle and at about 4:30 p.m. her dead-body was found.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and only evidence against the applicant is of last seen.

6. He further submits that during investigation when statement of one Rashid was recorded then he stated in his statement before the I.O. that he witnessed the applicant and co-accused Pramod while they were going alongwith deceased on the motorcycle but during trial, he has been declared hostile as he did not support the prosecution case and his statement recorded before the trial court has been annexed at page 55 of the paper book.

7. He further submits that however, as per prosecution, during investigation, a CCTV Footage was also procured and from its perusal, it reflects that applicant was sitting on the motorcycle alongwith the deceased and co-accused Pramod but from the CCTV Footage, it could not be reflected that when applicant was last seen alongwith deceased and co-accused Pramod.

8. He further submits that merely on the basis of evidence of last seen, it cannot be said that applicant committed the murder of the deceased unless there is some proximity between time of death of the deceased and time when applicant was last seen and in the absence of date and time when the applicant was last seen alongwith the deceased and co-accused Pramod, it cannnot be said that applicant committed the murder of the deceased.

9. He further submits that however, apart from the present case, applicant was having criminal history of one another case but that case relates to Gambling Act.

10. He further submits that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 27.02.2023 i.e. for last more than two years.

11. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that from the CCTV Footage, it is quite apparent that applicant was on the motorcycle alongiwth co-accused Pramod and deceased and therefore, it cannot be said that there is no cogent evidence against the applicant on record but he fairly conceded, except the evidence of last seen, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record and from the CCTV Footage, it could not be reflected that what was date and time when applicant was allegedly last seen alongwith the deceased.

12. He further could not not dispute the fact that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and applicant is in jail in the present matter for last more than two years.

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

14. However, applicant is brother-in-law (jija) of the deceased and there is evidence of last seen against him and witness Rashid stated during investigation that he witnessed the applicant alongwith deceased and co-accused Pramod but during trial he has been declared hostile.

15. Further, however, there is also a CCTV Footage and from its perusal, it reflects that applicant was last seen alongwith deceased and co-accused Pramod while he was sitting on the motorcycle alongwith them but from the details of the CCTV Footage, it could not be reflected that when applicant was witnessed alongwith deceased and co-accused Pramod as neither date nor time could be disclosed from the CCTV Footage. Consideirng this fact, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that merley on the basis of such footage of CCTV, applicant cannot be connected with the instant crime as it cannot be said that he committed the murder of the deceased.

16. Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant was having criminal history of one another case but that case relates to Gambling Act.

17. Further, applicant is in jail in the present matter since

27.02.2023 i.e. for last more than two years.

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

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

20. Let the applicant- Bantu, 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 :- 11.3.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad