Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:20366 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45602 of 2024 Applicant :- Sameer Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar,Vinay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nagendra Kumar Mishra, learned Brief Holder for the State-opposite party. 2. 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. 310 of 2024, under Sections 61, 310, 317 B.N.S., Police Station Shivpur, District Varanasi during the pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The applicant was arrested after fourteen days of the alleged incident along with two other persons and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of a motorcycle has been shown from the joint possession of the applicant and other co-accused. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Recovery of Rs.7500/- and a mobile phone has also been shown from the personal possession of the applicant. The said Indian currency and mobile phone belong to the applicant. It is next contended that identically placed co-accused Dinesh alias Deenu Sonkar has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 05.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34701 of 2024, Dinesh alias Deenu Sonkar v. State of U.P.. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph-17 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 06.08.2024 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned Brief Holder for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report and there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for almost six 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. 6. Let the applicant- Sameer, 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. 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 :- 13.2.2025 SKT/- Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad