Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35717 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47440 of 2024 Applicant :- Harsh Prajapati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Singh,Ranjay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. 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. 25 of 2024, under Sections 394, 411 I.P.C., Police Station- Mataundh, District- Banda during pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The applicant was arrested on 27.3.2024 along with three other co-accused and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of E-rickshaw has been shown from the joint possession of the applicant and other co-accused. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. There is no substantive evidence to indicate that the E- rickshaw recovered from the possession of the applicant belongs to the informant. Recovery memo does not bear the engine number and chassis number. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 6 and 8 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 7.3.2024. 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 submissions from the record. 5. Having heard 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. There is no substantive evidence to indicate that the E-rickshaw recovered from the possession of the applicant belongs to the informant. Recovery memo does not bear the engine number and chassis number. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for more than one year 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 intimidate the witness, 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, Harsh Prajapati 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 tamper with the prosecution evidence; ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness; 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 :- 11.3.2025 S.S. Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad