Omendra Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:55693

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2456 of 2025

Applicant :- Omendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajiv Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the Staterespondent.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 166 of 2024, under Sections 302, 34 IPC, Police Station Ughaiti, District Budaun, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and coaccused Suman and unknown person and according to the FIR younger brother of the informant developed illicit relationship with co-accused Suman but she was having relationship with the applicant and due to this reason, they have committed his murder.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however, applicant is named in the FIR alongwith co-accused Suman but admittedly there is no eye witness account.

¶10

He further submitted that it appears informant disclosed the name of the applicant and co-accused Suman on the basis of suspicion.

¶11

He further submitted that however when the statement of the informant was recorded during investigation then he stated that Bijendra, Rishipal and Alizan witnessed the applicant and coaccused Suman alongwith the deceased on 10.6.2024 and when their statements were recorded by the Investigating Officer then they also stated that they witnessed the applicant and co-accused Suman alongwith the deceased on 10.6.2024 but they did not disclose the time when they witnessed the applicant and coaccused Suman alongwith the deceased and therefore, the alleged

¶12

evidence of last seen is of no value.

¶13

He further submitted that after considering entire facts of the case in detail, co-accused Suman has been released on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.12.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 44330 of 2024 and her bail order has been annexed at page 54 of the paper book and except the fact that she was lady, on facts, case of applicant is at par with her.

¶14

He further submitted that even from the bail order of co-accused Suman, it could not be reflected that she has been released on bail on the ground that she is a lady rather it appears, she has been released on merit after considering entire facts of the cases.

¶15

He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 25.6.2024 i.e. for last more than ten months.

¶16

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶17

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

¶18

It is a case of circumstantial evidence and however, applicant is named in the FIR but it reflects on the basis of suspicion he has been made accused alongwith co-accused Suman in the FIR.

¶19

Further, however, during investigation when the statements of three witnesses were recorded then they stated that on 10.6.2024, they witnessed the applicant and co-accused Suman alongwith the deceased but their statements were recorded by the Investigating Officer after the statement of the informant in which he disclosed that these witnesses witnessed the applicant and co-accused Suman alongwith the deceased but informant did not disclose this fact in the FIR of the present case.

¶20

Further, even from the statements of above witnesses which have been annexed alongwith the instant bail application it could not be reflected that at which time they witnessed the applicant and co-accused Suman alongwith the deceased on 10.6.2024. Considering all these facts, the statements of these witnesses do not appear to be convincing.

¶21

Further, co-accused Suman has already been released on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court after considering entire facts of the case in detail.

¶22

Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 25.6.2024 i.e. for last more than ten months.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

Let the applicant- Omendra , 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:-

¶26

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶27

(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.

¶28

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

Order Date :- 16.4.2025

¶32

Ankita

¶33

Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Omendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases