Allahabad High Court
NAMAN @ NAMOversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The court held that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case connecting the applicant to the murder, warranting the grant of bail.
Summary
The applicant, Naman @ Namo, was arrested in connection with a murder case (Crime No. 103 of 2026) based largely on the statements of two witnesses who claimed to have seen him with an axe near a river and on the subsequent recovery of an axe and blood‑stained clothes. The applicant contended that the evidence was purely circumstantial, that the witnesses' statements were doubtful, and that the recovered items had not been linked to the crime, with no motive established against him. The prosecution argued that the circumstances indicated his involvement but could not provide a clear motive or forensic connection. The court examined the credibility of the witness testimonies and the lack of forensic linkage, concluding that the prosecution had not made out a prima facie case. Considering the applicant's clean criminal record and the five‑month pre‑trial detention, the court found sufficient grounds to grant bail. Accordingly, the bail application was allowed subject to personal bond, sureties, and standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case linking the applicant to the murder.
- Whether the circumstantial evidence and witness statements are sufficient to deny bail.
- Whether the absence of a demonstrated motive and lack of forensic linkage affect bail eligibility.
- Whether the applicant's prior criminal record and period of pre‑trial detention warrant bail.
Subjects
- bail
- circumstantial evidence
- murder
- prima facie
- motive
- criminal history
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33346 of 2026
Naman @ Namo
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amarnath Tripathi, Narendra Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anurag Dubey, G.A.
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Amarnath Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant;
Sri Anurag Dubey, learned counsel for the informant and Dr. S. B. Maurya,
learned AGA for the State-respondent.
2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on
bail in Case Crime No. 103 of 2026, under Sections 103(1) BNS, Police
Station Alau, District Mainpuri, during pendency of the trial in the court
below.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is a case of
circumstantial evidence and nobody was named in the FIR but during
investigation very casually informant in his statement recorded by the
Investigating Officer raised suspicion against the applicant.
4. He further submitted that during investigation when Investigating Officer
recorded the statement of two witnesses Jaichandra and Umesh then they
stated that they witnessed the applicant while he was going towards the river
having axe in his hand and thereafter on the pointing out of the applicant, the
alleged axe and his blood stained cloths were recovered.
5. He further submitted that except the above evidence, there is no other
evidence against the applicant on record.
6. He further submitted that in absence of any other corroborative evidence
merely on the basis of above evidence, prima facie, it cannot be said that
applicant committed the murder of the deceased specially considering the
fact that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted and till date alleged
BAIL No. 33346 of 2026
2
recovered items could not be connected with the instant crime.
7. He further submitted that however it is a case of circumstantial evidence
but prosecution could not disclose any motive against the applicant.
8. He further submitted that applicant is having no previous criminal history
and he is in jail in the present matter since 4.4.2026.
9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant
opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts
advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
11. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and nobody was named in the
FIR.
12. According to the prosecution, following circumstances are against the
applicant:-
(a) Applicant was seen by the witnesses Jaichandra and Umesh while he
was going towards the river and at that time he was having axe in his hand.
(b) On the pointing out of the applicant an axe and his blood stained clothes
were recovered.
13. As far as first circumstance is concerned, prima facie, statements of both
the witnesses appear to be doubtful and even merely on the basis of above
statements, prima facie, it cannot be said that applicant involved in the
present crime.
14. Further, as far as second circumstance is concerned, the manner in which
alleged recovery was made it, prima facie, casts doubt on the entire
recovery.
15. Further, even till date alleged recovered item could not be connected
with the instant crime. However, in the present matter charge sheet has been
submitted.
16. Considering the overall facts of the case, this Court finds merit in the
argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that prima facie,
there is no evidence which can connect the applicant with the instant crime.
BAIL No. 33346 of 2026
3
17. Further, however it is a case of circumstantial evidence but even then
prosecution could not disclose any clear and strong motive against the
applicant
18. Further, applicant is having no previous criminal history and he is in jail
in the present matter since 4.4.2026 i.e. for last five and half months.
19. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed
above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
20. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant bail application is allowed.
21. Let the applicant-Naman @ Namo, 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 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.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
22. 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.
23. 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.
September 18, 2026
Ankita
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANKITA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…