Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32319 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3330 of 2025 Applicant :- Gopi Arakh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Tripathi 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. 106 of 2024, under Sections 457, 380, 411, 413, 414 I.P.C., Police Station- Pahari, District- Chitrakoot 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 travelling in a Innova car. He was arrested on 16.8.2024 along with nine co- accused in Case Crime No. 0132 of 2024, under Section 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Sardhuva, District Chitrakoot and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of a country made pistol and two live cartridges has been shown from the personal possession of the applicant. Recovery of a mobile phone and Indian currency of Rs.500/- has also been shown from the applicant. The said mobile phone and Indian currency belongs to the applicant. Further, false recovery of ornaments of yellow and white metal have also been shown from the alleged Innova car. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. It is next contended that identically placed co-accused Jogendra has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 41020 of 2024. The applicant claims parity. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 9 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 17.8.2024. 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. Identically placed co-accused Jogendra has been granted bail by this Court. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for more than six 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 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, Gopi Arakh involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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 :- 6.3.2025 S.S. Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad