Roshan vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86608

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3326 of 2025

Applicant :- Roshan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed by State is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashutosh Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 352 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 103(1), 238(Ka) BNS, Police Station- Chandpur, DistrictBijnor, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however, applicant is named in the FIR but it reflects, on the basis of suspicion, he has been made accused in the FIR of the present case.

¶10

He further submitted that however, during investigation, Investigating Officer procured CCTV footage and from its perusal, it reflects, applicant was last seen along with the deceased but merely on this basis, at this stage, it cannot be said that applicant committed the murder of the deceased.

¶11

He further submitted that however, as per prosecution, when applicant was arrested then on her pointing out, dead body of the deceased was recovered from a pond but entire recovery is totally false and baseless. He further submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and prosecution has not come with any plausible motive.

¶12

He further submitted that applicant is lady and she is not having any criminal history and she is in jail in the present matter since 13.07.2024 i.e. for last more than 10 months.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

However, applicant is named in the FIR but it reflects, merely on the basis of suspicion, she has been made accused in the present matter.

¶16

Further, it is a case of circumstantial evidence and it appears, there is evidence of last seen against the applicant and as per prosecution, on the pointing out of applicant, dead body of the deceased was also recovered from a pond but merely on the basis of evidence of last seen evidence, in view of this Court, at this stage, it cannot be said that applicant committed the murder of the deceased, especially considering the fact that applicant is lady and there is no specific motive against her.

¶17

Further, considering the recovery memo, which was produced by learned AGA during the course of argument, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that prima facie, the alleged recovery, appears to be doubtful, cannot be completely ruled out.

¶18

Further, the manner, in which the alleged recovery of dead body was made, appears to be doubtful.

¶19

Further, applicant is lady and she is not having any criminal history and she is in jail in the present matter for last more than ten months.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

Let the applicant- Roshan 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:-

¶23

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates

¶24

fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶25

(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.

¶26

(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.

¶29

Order Date :- 21.5.2025 KK Patel

¶30

Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Roshan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshan 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

Subedar Patel Alias Dhoni vs State of U.P.

Manish vs State of U.P.

Akhlaque Ahmad and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Pappu @ Serwari vs State of U.P.

Bhagwan Patel vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shaukeen vs State of U.P.