Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:19250 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4021 of 2025 Applicant :- Prithvi Lal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravendra Pratap Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.S. Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party. 2. The instant bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 114 of 2024, under Sections 305(A), 331(4), 317(2) B.N.S., Police Station Dhata, District Fatehpur during the pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The applicant was arrested after almost one and half months of the alleged incident along with five other persons 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 applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Recovery of two android mobile phones and Rs.2500/- has also been shown from the applicant. The said mobile phones and Indian currency belong to the applicant. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph-8 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 15.08.2024 and if he is released 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 learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of 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. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for almost six 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. 6. 6. Let the applicant- Prithvi Lal, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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. 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 :- 10.2.2025 SKT/- Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad