1. By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.0224 of 2023 under Sections 201, 302 I.P.C., Police Station -Maeel, District-Deoria. The applicant is in jail since 10.09.2023.

2. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 03.05.2024.

3. The following arguments made by Shri Saroj Dubey, learned counsel assisted by Shri Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Sushil Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the informant and Shri Niraj Tiwari, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

"1. The deceased disappeared in the evening of 08.09.2023. A missing report was got registered by the wife of the deceased on 09.09.2023. The applicant was not referenced in the said report.

2. The FIR was lodged on 10.09.2023 by the wife of the deceased. The prosecution case set out in the FIR is that the deceased Shiv Shankar Pandey went missing since the evening of 08.09.2023. The first informant went in search of him. Information came to light that had been done to death by one Sanjay Yadav @ Tata and the body has been thrown in the Ghaghra river.

3. The FIR records that there was an enmity between Sanjay Yadav and the deceased.

4. The applicant did not have any motive to commit the murder.

5. Delay in lodgement of the FIR in the facts of this case is fatal to the prosecution case.

6. The applicant was nominated only at the instigation of interested parties in the village.

7. The statement of the first informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also states that the deceased has left home in response to a phone call made to the principal offender Sanjay Yadav. Thereafter, the first informant reiterated the recitals in the FIR in the said statement.

8. Two witnesses were belatedly set up by the police authorities to save the failing prosecution case. The said witnesses are not eye witnesses neither are they witnesses of last seen.

9. The other piece of implicatory evidence is the statement of co-accused made before the police authorities while the latter was in police custody. The said statement too insofar as it implicates the applicant is not admissible in evidence.

10. One trouser, shirt and mobile phone were planted on the applicant to burnish the credentials of the police authorities. The recoveries were made in an open field which was accessible to one and all.

11. There is no independent witness to the recovery.

12. The recovered article cannot be connected with the offence.

13. The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

14. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant- Shivam Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted."

4. The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement rendered by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023).

5. The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant.