Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39445 Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6362 of 2025 Applicant :- Sonu Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Puttu Lal Misra,Prince Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.23 of 2025, under Section 109(1) BNS and Section 3/25, 5/27(1) Arms Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Ayodhya. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the recovery shown in this case is fabricated. It is further submitted that the applicant and co-accused persons were arrested from the State of Bihar and were brought to Ayodhya, where the police allegedly shot the applicant as well as co-accused Chandan Yadav. No one from the police side has been injured. It is a case of false implication. There is no independent witness to support the alleged recovery. The applicant is in jail since 13.01.2025. Although the applicant has a criminal history of six cases, the same has been duly explained in the bail application. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the facts mentioned above. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record. On due consideration to the facts that the applicant is in jail since 13.1.2025; it is a case of no injury to the police; the applicant has criminal history of six cases and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Sonu Yadav be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions: (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the IPC (now Section 269 BNS). (vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS)is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the IPC (now Section 209 BNS). Order Date :- 10.7.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench