Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:12212 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46833 of 2024 Applicant :- Surjeet Alias Sarjeet Luniya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akansha Verma,Deepak Kumar Verma,Dinesh Kumar Srivastava 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 learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party and perused the record. 3. 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. 144 of 2024, under Sections 309(6), 317(2) B.N.S., Police Station Araul, District Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of the trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The applicant was arrested on 31.8.2024 along with two other co-accused in Case Crime No.148 of 2024, u/s 109 B.N.S., Police Station Araul, District Kanpur Nagar and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of Rs.5500/- and a DVR has been shown from the applicant after fourteen days of the alleged incident. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Recovery of the Indian currency and DVR cannot be connected with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 31.08.2024. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 19 of the bail application and in para 2 of the supplementary affidavit. If the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 5. Learned A.G.A. for the State 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 applicant was not named in the first information report. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Recovery of the Indian currency and DVR cannot be connected with the offence. 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- Surjeet Alias Sarjeet Luniya, 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 :- 23.1.2025 Manish Kr Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad