High Court · 2025

R. N. Srivastava, learned AGA for the State-respondent and Shri Surendra Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for the informant.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.180 of 2024, under Sections 238, 103(1) B.N.S. and Sections 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station Nanuta, District Saharanpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 07.08.2024 against unknown person and according to the FIR, son of the informant was employee of HDFC Bank and since 06.08.2024, he was missing and on 07.08.2024 his dead-body was recovered.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that nobody was named in the FIR but during investigation when on 15.08.2024 statement of the wife of the deceased was recorded then she stated that due to money transaction on 06.08.2024 at about 6:30 p.m. in the evening deceased informed her that applicant called him.

6. He further submits that thereafter on 25.08.2024 I.O. recorded the statements of two witnesses namely Munawwar and Ankur Tomar and they stated that on 06.08.2024 at 8 p.m. in the evening they witnessed the applicant alongwith the deceased on the motorcycle.

7. He further submits that as per prosecution when applicant was arrested then he confessed his guilt and on his pointing out Pan Card and motorcycle of the deceased and knife alleged to have been used in the crime were recovered.

8. He further submits that except above evidence, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record.

9. He further submits that as evidence of last seen was surfaced against the applicant after more than two weeks, therefore, it is not safe to rely upon such evidence.

10. He further submits that from the recovery memo, it reflects that recoveries were made from an open place, which was accessible to all.

11. He further submits that even without any corroborative evidence, no reliance can be placed on above recoveries.

12. He further submits that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no cogent evidence against the applicant on record, which can connect him with the instant crime.

13. He next submits that the applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 28.08.2024 i.e. for last more than six months.

14. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit applicant used to take money from the deceased and he after receiving money from number of ladies misappropriated the same and only due to this reason, he committed the murder of the deceased.

15. They further submit that as per witnesses Munawwar and Ankur Tomar, applicant was last seen alongwith the deceased on the motorcycle and motorcycle of the deceased was also recovered on his pointing out alongwith his Pan Card and knife used in the crime, therefore, it cannot be said that there is no evidence against the applicant on record.

16. However, both the counsel could not dispute the fact that statements of both the above witnesses, who gave evidence of last seen against the applicant, were recorded on 25.08.2024 i.e. after more than two weeks.

17. They further could not dispute the fact that the alleged recoveries were made on the pointing out of the applicant from a public place, which was accessible to all.

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

19. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and it appears, during investigation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter on the basis of evidence of last seen but it reflects, evidence of last seen was surfaced in the present matter after more than two weeks.

20. Further, however as per prosecution, on the pointing out of the applicant, Pan Card and motorcycle of the deceased and knife alleged to have been used in the crime were recovered but from the recovery memo, it reflects, the recoveries were made from a public place, which was accessible to all.

21. Further, this Court also finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that without any corroborative evidence merely on the basis of above recoveries, it cannot be said that applicant committed the murder of the deceased.

22. Further, law is settled, unless proven guilty, an accused is deemed to be innocent.

23. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 28.08.2024 i.e. for last more than six months.

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

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

26. Let the applicant- Pravesh Kumar, 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.

27. 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.

28. 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 :- 5.3.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

R. N. Srivastava, learned AGA for the State-respondent and Shri Surendra Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for the informant.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.180 of 2024, under Sections 238, 103(1) B.N.S. and Sections 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station Nanuta, District Saharanpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 07.08.2024 against unknown person and according to the FIR, son of the informant was employee of HDFC Bank and since 06.08.2024, he was missing and on 07.08.2024 his dead-body was recovered.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that nobody was named in the FIR but during investigation when on 15.08.2024 statement of the wife of the deceased was recorded then she stated that due to money transaction on 06.08.2024 at about 6:30 p.m. in the evening deceased informed her that applicant called him.

6. He further submits that thereafter on 25.08.2024 I.O. recorded the statements of two witnesses namely Munawwar and Ankur Tomar and they stated that on 06.08.2024 at 8 p.m. in the evening they witnessed the applicant alongwith the deceased on the motorcycle.

7. He further submits that as per prosecution when applicant was arrested then he confessed his guilt and on his pointing out Pan Card and motorcycle of the deceased and knife alleged to have been used in the crime were recovered.

8. He further submits that except above evidence, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record.

9. He further submits that as evidence of last seen was surfaced against the applicant after more than two weeks, therefore, it is not safe to rely upon such evidence.

10. He further submits that from the recovery memo, it reflects that recoveries were made from an open place, which was accessible to all.

11. He further submits that even without any corroborative evidence, no reliance can be placed on above recoveries.

12. He further submits that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no cogent evidence against the applicant on record, which can connect him with the instant crime.

13. He next submits that the applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 28.08.2024 i.e. for last more than six months.

14. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit applicant used to take money from the deceased and he after receiving money from number of ladies misappropriated the same and only due to this reason, he committed the murder of the deceased.

15. They further submit that as per witnesses Munawwar and Ankur Tomar, applicant was last seen alongwith the deceased on the motorcycle and motorcycle of the deceased was also recovered on his pointing out alongwith his Pan Card and knife used in the crime, therefore, it cannot be said that there is no evidence against the applicant on record.

16. However, both the counsel could not dispute the fact that statements of both the above witnesses, who gave evidence of last seen against the applicant, were recorded on 25.08.2024 i.e. after more than two weeks.

17. They further could not dispute the fact that the alleged recoveries were made on the pointing out of the applicant from a public place, which was accessible to all.

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

19. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and it appears, during investigation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter on the basis of evidence of last seen but it reflects, evidence of last seen was surfaced in the present matter after more than two weeks.

20. Further, however as per prosecution, on the pointing out of the applicant, Pan Card and motorcycle of the deceased and knife alleged to have been used in the crime were recovered but from the recovery memo, it reflects, the recoveries were made from a public place, which was accessible to all.

21. Further, this Court also finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that without any corroborative evidence merely on the basis of above recoveries, it cannot be said that applicant committed the murder of the deceased.

22. Further, law is settled, unless proven guilty, an accused is deemed to be innocent.

23. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 28.08.2024 i.e. for last more than six months.

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

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

26. Let the applicant- Pravesh Kumar, 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.

27. 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.

28. 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 :- 5.3.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad