Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36496 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3449 of 2025 Applicant :- Rajesh Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Rana,Shardeshwar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the counsel for the applicant, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.P.Tripathi, learned AGA for the State-respondent and perused the record. 3. 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. 31 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Khajni, District Gorakhpur during the pendency of trial. 4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The sale deed was executed by an imposter. No amount has been credited in the account of the applicant. The applicant is not a beneficiary of the illicit transaction. At this stage, there is no credible evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Identically placed co-accused Ranjeet Singh @ Rinku Singh has been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.11.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45377 of 2022. The role of the co-accused Avinash Kumar is distinguishable from the applicant. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 35 of the bail application and para 4 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 15.12.2024 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 5. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 6. 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. No amount has been credited in the bank account of the applicant. At this stage there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Identically placed co-accused Ranjeet Singh @ Rinku Singh has been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The applicant has remained confined for almost 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 the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 7. Let the applicant Rajesh Singh, 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 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. 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 :- 12.3.2025 Lbm/- Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad