Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29620 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44221 of 2024 Applicant :- Shyam Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant bail application, under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 42 of 2023, under Sections 395, 412, 120B I.P.C., Police Station- Saiyan, District- Agra, during pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the first information report. On the basis of the information furnished by the informer, the applicant was arrested along with other co-accused and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of Rs. 14,000/- has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Recovery of a mobile phone has also been shown from the applicant. The said mobile phone belongs to him. It is next contended that identically placed co-accused, Dharmendra Singh has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 23.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16286 of 2023 (Dharmendra Singh vs. State of U.P.). The applicant claims parity. Prior to the instant case the applicant does not have any criminal history, however after his arrest he has been implicated in another case. The applicant is in jail since 03.03.2023 and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid facts from the record. 5. Having heard learned 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. Identically placed co-accused, Dharmendra Singh has been granted bail by this Court. At this stage, there is no substantive evidence against the applicant. Further, the applicant has remained confined for two years 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. 6. Let the applicant, Shyam Sharma 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. 7. 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 :- 3.3.2025 Sachin Mishra Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad