Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:24900 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44018 of 2024 Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Narayan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party. 3. The instant bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 232 of 2024, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) B.N.S., Police Station Matsaina, District Firozabad during the pendency of the trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Recovery of Rs.12,000/-, an identity card, a PAN card, two mobile phones has been shown from the applicant. The said mobiles phones, Indian currency, identity card and PAN card belong to the applicant. Recovery of 5 laptops and other articles has also been shown from a car which does not belong to the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The alleged recovery from the car is false and planted. The applicant has no concern with the alleged recovery. Recovered articles cannot be connected with the offence. Co-accused Avadhesh Kumar has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 44672 of 2024, Avadhesh Kumar v. State of U.P. The applicant claims parity. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraphs- 4 to 7 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 26.10.2024 and if he is released 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 learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Recovered articles cannot be connected with the offence. Co-accused Avadhesh Kumar has been granted bail by this Court. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for almost four months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, 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, therefore, 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- Sandeep Kumar, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of 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; and, (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 :- 20.2.2025 SKT/- Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad