Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:20500 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45882 of 2024 Applicant :- Shyama Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kant Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Anupam Anand, learned brief holder for the State-opposite party and perused the record. 2. The instant bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.372 of 2024, under Sections 316(2), 319(2), 318(4), 317(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Ghoorpur, District Prayagraj during the pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 11.09.2024. The first information report was lodged on 24.10.2024. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. The applicant along with another co-accused was arrested on the next day of lodging the first information report. False recovery of two gold items 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/- (five lakhs) was also shown from the possession of co-accused Prakash Bind. At this stage, there is no credible evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 25.10.2024 having no criminal history and in case, he is enlarged 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 counsel for the parties and having perused the record this Court prima facie finds that the first information report was lodged belatedly. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. At this stage, there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than three 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 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 Shyama, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the 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; (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 Lbm/- Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad