Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sameer Jain, J.
Boby - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1606 of 2025
Decided On : 06-02-2025
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 437 - Bail application - The applicant seeks bail in a murder case where circumstantial evidence is the basis for accusation. The applicant was not named in the FIR and the evidence against him is primarily circumstantial, lacking cogent proof of guilt. (Paras 2, 8, 12, 13, 16)
(B) Circumstantial Evidence - The court emphasizes that mere circumstantial evidence, such as CCTV footage, is insufficient for conviction without corroborative proof. The applicant's previous criminal history is clear, and he has been in custody for over five months. (Paras 8, 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The FIR was lodged on 9.8.2024, alleging murder, with the applicant arrested based on circumstantial evidence involving a Scorpio vehicle linked to the crime scene, not owned by him. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court finds merit in the applicant's argument that circumstantial evidence alone does not establish guilt, leading to the decision to grant bail. (Paras 13, 16)
Issues: The main issues were the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence for bail and the applicant's lack of previous criminal history. (Paras 8, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that circumstantial evidence must be corroborated by other evidence to justify arrest and bail, highlighting the presumption of innocence. (Paras 12, 16)
Result: Bail application allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Sameer Jain, J.
1. Heard Sri Vipul Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA, for the State.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.191 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 3(5), 189(4) and 351(2) BNS, Police Station Kasna, District Gautam Buddha Nagar during pendency of the trial.
3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 9.8.2024 against six accused persons (non applicant) and according to the FIR, on 9.8.2024 at about 5.30 AM informant and her mother came to know that father of the informant has been murdered. It is further mentioned in the FIR that subsequently nominated accused persons confessed their guilt before the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was not named in the FIR but during investigation, as per prosecution, a CCTV Footage near the house of the informant was procured and after its perusal it was found that in the night, i.e., the date of incident a Scorpio Vehicle was seen near the house of the informant and thereafter when police apprehended the alleged Scorpio vehicle then from the vehicle applicant and two others were arrested and they confessed their guilt.
5. He further submits that entire allegation levelled against the applicant is totally false and applicant never confessed his guilt before the Police.
6. He further submits that the alleged Scorpio vehicle does not even belong to the applicant.
7. He further submits that even merely on the basis of alleged evidences which were collected by Investigating Officer against the applicant, it cannot be said that applicant committed the murder of the father of the informant.
8. He further submits that admittedly it is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no cogent evidence against the applicant on record.
9. He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 10.8.2024, i.e., for the last more than five months.
10. Per contra, learned AGA although opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant.
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 during investigation applicant has been made accused in the present matter on the basis of his confessional statement.
13. Record however further suggests that during investigation through CCTV Footage a Scorpio vehicle was spotted near the place of incident and from the alleged Scorpio vehicle arrest of the applicant has been made along with two others but the alleged recovered Scorpio Vehicle does not belong to applicant and this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that merely on the basis of CCTV Footage on the basis of which applicant and two others were arrested, it cannot be said that applicant committed the murder of the father of the informant.
14. Further, except above evidences there is no other evidence against the applicant on record.
15. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 10.8.2024.
16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.
18. Let the applicant-Boby 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
Circumstantial evidence must be corroborated by additional proof to justify arrest and bail; mere allegations are insufficient.
The court emphasized that bail may be granted when circumstantial evidence is insufficient to establish a prima facie case against the accused.
Bail may be granted in murder cases where circumstantial evidence is insufficient to establish the accused's involvement.
The presumption of innocence allows for interim bail confirmation when the applicant cooperates with the investigation and no prior criminal record exists.
The court affirms the principles guiding bail applications, emphasizing the necessity of cooperation in trial proceedings.
The court held that bail should not be granted where the evidence against the applicant, though circumstantial, warrants further investigation and lacks conclusive disproof.
Court allows bail considering the absence of incriminating evidence and significant duration of custody.
The court ruled that circumstantial evidence and witness statements established a prima facie case against the applicant, justifying the denial of bail.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
