Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27547 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3405 of 2025 Applicant :- Sahil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Waseem 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. 197 of 2024, under Sections 457, 380 I.P.C., Police Station- Subhash Nagar, District- Bareilly, during pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. On the basis of the information furnished by the informer, the applicant was arrested along with co-accused, Zakir @ Zakira. Recovery of a trolley bag, mobile phones and other articles at the pointing out of the applicant and another co-accused has been made. The alleged recovery is false and planted. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. It is next contended that the co-accused, Zakir @ Zakira has been granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Bareilly vide order dated 09.07.2024 passed in C.N.R. No. UPBR01-007141-2024 (Zakir @ Zakira vs. State of U.P.). The applicant claims parity. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para no. 3 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 02.06.2024. 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 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. The co-accused, Zakir @ Zakira has been granted bail by the Sessions Court. At this stage, there is no substantive evidence against the applicant. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than eight months 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, Sahil 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 :- 27.2.2025 Sachin Mishra Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad