Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:19816 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2596 of 2025 Applicant :- Jatinder Urf Jitendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- A.C.Srivastava,Subham Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dheeraj Kumar Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri Dheeraj Kumar Singh, counsel for the informant, Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State-opposite party and perused the record. 2.The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.236 of 2023, under Sections 147, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad, during the pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. A wholly commercial dispute between the parties has been given colour of a criminal case. It is next contended that the disputed amount has been paid by the applicant to the informant, and at present no dispute survives between the parties. The applicant was earlier involved in Case Crime No. 278 of 2024, under Sections 420, 409, 504, 506, 120B, 34 I.P.C., Police Station- Kavi Nagar, District- Ghaziabad. In the said case, the applicant has been enlarged on bail. The applicant is in jail since 03.10.2024 and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Counsel for the informant does not dispute the submissions raised by counsel for the applicant. On the basis of instructions, he submits that the informant has no objection if the applicant is released on bail. 5. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this Court prima facie finds that a wholly commercial dispute between the parties has been given colour of a criminal case. The disputed amount has been paid by the applicant to the informant. At this stage, there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Further, the informant has no objection if the applicant is released on bail. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than four months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 7. Let the applicant Jatinder Urf Jitendra, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions that he: (i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; (ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses. 8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 11.2.2025 Sachin Mishra Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad