Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41907 Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6714 of 2025 Applicant :- Neeraj Kumar @ Munshi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Bhushan,Praveen Kumar Tripathi 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 present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.94 of 2025, under Sections 316(3), 317(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) BNS, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Sitapur. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that complainant has purchased 150 quintals sugar on 05.04.2025 from Juwari Sugar Industries Naipalapur Depot worth Rs.6.5 lakhs which was to be transported by Mahadev Roadlines, Sidhauli vide vehicle U.P. 30 AT 4041 however, the consignment was not received till due date i.e. 05.04.2025. Later on, the alleged sugar was recovered from the applicant who was found along with truck with the changed number plate. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is the driver. The allegation in the prosecution case is false. Applicant is alleged to have been arrested along with 283 bags of sugar factory after seven days of the purchase of sugar. There is no independent witness of the said recovery which is highly improbable. Applicant has been falsely implicated. The offence is triable by magistrate. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 12.04.2025. He further claims parity with the bail order of co-accused Vimal who has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 01.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6139 of 2025. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer. On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.04.2025, offence is triable by magistrate, there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery, the role assigned to the applicant, bail order of co-accused Vimal (supra) 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 Neeraj Kumar @ Munshi be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court 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 269 of BNS. (vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under 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 209 BNS. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 Saurabh Yadav/- Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench