Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27225 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3227 of 2025 Applicant :- Prakash Bind Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Chandra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit, filed by the counsel for the applicant, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 372 of 2024, under Sections 316(2), 319(2), 318(4), 317(2), 61(2) B.N.S, Police Station- Ghoorpur, District- Yamunanagar (Commissionerate Prayagraj), during pendency of the trial. 4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 11.9.2024. The first information report was lodged on 24.10.2024. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. The applicant along with the another co-accused was arrested on the next day of the lodging of the first information report. False recovery of a yellow metal has been shown from the possession of the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Recovery of Indian currency of Rs.5,00,000/- has also been shown from the possession of the applicant. The said amount belongs to the applicant. The said money was withdrawn by the applicant from his bank account. No CDR report has been collected by the investigating officer to establish that the applicant or the co-accused were in contact with the informant. Recovery of Indian currency cannot be connected with the offence. At this stage, there is no credible evidence to the link the applicant with the offence. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 3 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 25.10.2024. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 5. Learned A.G.A. 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 the delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. No CDR report has been collected by the investigating officer to establish that the applicant or the co-accused were in contact with the informant. Recovery of Indian currency cannot be connected with the offence. At this stage, there is no substantive evidence to the link the applicant with the offence. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for more than four months and 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 intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 7. Let the applicant, Prakash Bind involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that: i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness; iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court. 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 :- 27.2.2025 S.S. Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad