High Court · 2025

Applicant :- Ayan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajneesh Kumar Sharma,Vinod Shankar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Namit Srivastava,Parul Srivastava Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

1. Heard Sri Vinod Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Namit Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 175 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 238 BNS and 3/25, 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Bijnor, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and without any cogent evidence, applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

4. He further submitted that on 28.07.2024 a missing report has been lodged by the informant of the case with regard to missing of her son, who had gone from her house on 26.07.2024 and from the missing report, it reflects that after receiving phone call, her son had gone from her house and subsequently, it was revealed that applicant was the person, who made the above call and thereafter, he has been made accused in the present matter and after that the missing report has been treated as the FIR of the present case.

5. He further submitted that as per prosecution, when applicant was arrested then he confessed his guilt and on his pointing out, the alleged skeleton of the deceased was recovered from the field of one Akaram, which situated near the forest.

6. He further submitted that during investigation, Investigating Officer also recorded the statements of two witnesses, who stated that they witnessed the applicant along with deceased on 26.07.2024 in the evening.

7. He further submitted that except the above evidence of last seen and recovery of skeleton, there is no cogent evidence against the applicant on record.

8. He further submitted that till date, it could not be established that what was the time and date of death of the deceased and, therefore, the evidence of last seen is having no importance. He further submitted that as recovery of the alleged skeleton of the deceased was made from an open place, which was accessible to all, therefore, merely on the basis of this recovery, it cannot be said that applicant is the person, who committed the murder of the deceased.

9. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 04.08.2024.

10. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is evidence of last seen against the applicant and on his pointing out, skeleton of the deceased was also recovered but both the counsels could not dispute the fact that duration and time of death of the deceased could not be ascertained and except the evidence of last seen and recovery of skeleton on the pointing out of the applicant, there is no cogent evidence against the applicant on record. They further could not dispute the fact that skeleton of the deceased was recovered from an open place, which was accessible to all.

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

12. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and it appears that there are three following circumstances against the applicant:- (a) applicant was last seen by two witnesses namely Shabana and Saieda on 26.07.2024 in the evening, (b) on his pointing out, skeleton of the deceased was recovered from a field situated near the forest, (c) from his possession, one knife was recovered, which alleged to have been used in the crime.

13. Except the above three circumstances, there is no other circumstance against the applicant.

14. As from perusal of the recovery memo, it reflects that recovery of the alleged skeleton was made from an open place, which was accessible to all, therefore, merely on the basis of above recovery, it can not be said, applicant is guilty.

15. Further, from the post-mortem report, it reflects that time of death of the deceased cold not be ascertained and considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that as prosecution could not establish the proximity between evidence of last seen and time of death, therefore, merely on the basis of alleged last seen evidence given by the witnesses Shabana and Saieda, it cannot be said that applicant committed the murder of the deceased, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

16. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 04.08.2024.

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

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

19. Let the applicant- Ayan 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 :- 23.1.2025 KK Patel KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Applicant :- Ayan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajneesh Kumar Sharma,Vinod Shankar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Namit Srivastava,Parul Srivastava Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

1. Heard Sri Vinod Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Namit Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 175 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 238 BNS and 3/25, 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Bijnor, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and without any cogent evidence, applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

4. He further submitted that on 28.07.2024 a missing report has been lodged by the informant of the case with regard to missing of her son, who had gone from her house on 26.07.2024 and from the missing report, it reflects that after receiving phone call, her son had gone from her house and subsequently, it was revealed that applicant was the person, who made the above call and thereafter, he has been made accused in the present matter and after that the missing report has been treated as the FIR of the present case.

5. He further submitted that as per prosecution, when applicant was arrested then he confessed his guilt and on his pointing out, the alleged skeleton of the deceased was recovered from the field of one Akaram, which situated near the forest.

6. He further submitted that during investigation, Investigating Officer also recorded the statements of two witnesses, who stated that they witnessed the applicant along with deceased on 26.07.2024 in the evening.

7. He further submitted that except the above evidence of last seen and recovery of skeleton, there is no cogent evidence against the applicant on record.

8. He further submitted that till date, it could not be established that what was the time and date of death of the deceased and, therefore, the evidence of last seen is having no importance. He further submitted that as recovery of the alleged skeleton of the deceased was made from an open place, which was accessible to all, therefore, merely on the basis of this recovery, it cannot be said that applicant is the person, who committed the murder of the deceased.

9. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 04.08.2024.

10. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is evidence of last seen against the applicant and on his pointing out, skeleton of the deceased was also recovered but both the counsels could not dispute the fact that duration and time of death of the deceased could not be ascertained and except the evidence of last seen and recovery of skeleton on the pointing out of the applicant, there is no cogent evidence against the applicant on record. They further could not dispute the fact that skeleton of the deceased was recovered from an open place, which was accessible to all.

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

12. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and it appears that there are three following circumstances against the applicant:- (a) applicant was last seen by two witnesses namely Shabana and Saieda on 26.07.2024 in the evening, (b) on his pointing out, skeleton of the deceased was recovered from a field situated near the forest, (c) from his possession, one knife was recovered, which alleged to have been used in the crime.

13. Except the above three circumstances, there is no other circumstance against the applicant.

14. As from perusal of the recovery memo, it reflects that recovery of the alleged skeleton was made from an open place, which was accessible to all, therefore, merely on the basis of above recovery, it can not be said, applicant is guilty.

15. Further, from the post-mortem report, it reflects that time of death of the deceased cold not be ascertained and considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that as prosecution could not establish the proximity between evidence of last seen and time of death, therefore, merely on the basis of alleged last seen evidence given by the witnesses Shabana and Saieda, it cannot be said that applicant committed the murder of the deceased, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

16. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 04.08.2024.

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

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

19. Let the applicant- Ayan 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 :- 23.1.2025 KK Patel KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad