Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:13849 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40858 of 2024 Applicant :- Waseem Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Belal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent. 3. The instant bail application, under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 257 of 2024 under Sections 123, 303(2), 317(2) of B.N.S., Police Station- Hapur Dehat, District- Hapur, during pendency of the trial. 4. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Neither in the first information report nor in the statement of the informant and the victim, the engine and chassis number of the alleged e-rickshaw was disclosed. False recovery of an e-rickshaw has been shown from the joint possession of the applicant and the co-accused, Jahid. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The CCTV footage cannot be connected with the offence. No test identification parade was got conducted by the police authorities. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para no. 2 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 12.08.2024 and 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 applicant was not named in the first information report. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. At this stage, there is no substantive evidence to establish that the alleged e-rickshaw was recovered from the possession of the applicant. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than five months and 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 the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 7. Let the applicant- Waseem, 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 temper with the prosecution evidence; ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness; and, 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 :- 27.1.2025 Sachin Mishra Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad