The court granted bail due to the applicant not being named in the FIR and the absence of convincing evidence indicating tampering, despite serious charges.

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Amit Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Sohan, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 282 of 2024, under Sections 408, 302, 201/34, 411 I.P.C. and Section 3/25/27 Arms Act, registered at Police Station Katghar, District Mordabad.

4. The FIR of the matter was lodged under Section 408 IPC on 06.06.2024 by Alankar Agrawal against Ajay Kumar the servant alleging therein that he is a jeweller. Ajay Kumar is working in his shop since last 7 years and used to take and bring money and thus was being trusted by him and his family members. On 04.06.2024 at about 08:40 am Ajay Kumar went for Delhi with some money and jewellery after which his mobile phone was switched off. He did not reach the destination. His phone is switched off. He has run away with the money and jewellery. Report be lodged and action be taken.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR. It is submitted that the implication of the applicant has surfaced in the matter during investigation in the confessional statement of co-accused Anmol and on his pointing out the dead body of Ajay Kumar was recovered. It is submitted that the investigation in the matter has concluded and a charge sheet has been submitted and as such there are no chances of the applicant tampering with evidence. It is further submitted that from the pointing out of the applicant Rs. 15,000/- and a country made pistol has been shown but the same is false and planted recovery having no connection with the present matter. It is submitted that there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery, para 27 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. It is submitted that co-accused Rajeev @ Raju Saini has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.11.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 38666 of 2024 (Rajeev @ Raju Saini Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the order is annexed as annexure 14 to the affidavit. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 35 of the affidavit and is in jail since 14.06.2024.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that co-accused Rajeev @ Raju Saini has been granted bail.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The implication of the applicant has surfaced during investigation in the confessional statement of co-accused Anmol. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Co-accused Rajeev @ Raju Saini has been granted bail. Charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant.

8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

9. Let the applicant Sohan, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties (one of the sureties of the applicant will be his family member and the other to be of local person) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are pr