Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43798 Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6946 of 2025 Applicant :- Ashok Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Surya Kumar,Pushpendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Manish Kumar Tripathi, Advocate on behalf of the complainant is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant as well as perused the record. The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.61 of 2025 under Section 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) BNS, Police Station Khargupur, District Gonda. It is alleged in the prosecution case that the applicant along with the co- accused prepared a forged sale deed of the land in question by using forged Aadhaar cards, PAN cards, and identification marks. It is further alleged that the consideration amount was distributed among the co-accused. It is alleged against the applicant that he posed as the son-in-law of one Malti Devi, whose real name is Kajal Devi. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the alleged recovery of one lakh rupees and a mobile phone is false, and there is no independent witness to support such recovery. The applicant has no criminal antecedents, and the offence is triable by a Magistrate. It is further submitted that co-accused persons namely Amit Kashyap, Nikhil Tripathi, Raju Mishra, Ashok Kumar Chauhan, and Kaptan Yadav @ Mahesh Yadav have already been granted bail by this Court and coordinate Bench of this Court. The applicant seeks parity with the bail orders of co- accused Raju Mishra and Ashok Kumar Chauhan, from whom recovery of one lakh rupees was also made. It is further submitted that those co-accused persons have criminal history, whereas the applicant does not, and therefore, his case stands on a better footing. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the facts mentioned above. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the applicant is the main conspirator and that he posed as the son-in-law of Malti Devi. It is further submitted that the applicant paid Rs. 43 lakh to Malti Devi, out of which a cheque of Rs. 20 lakh was issued in her favour. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record. On due consideration to the role assigned to the applicant, and taking into account the bail orders of the co-accused persons, particularly Raju Mishra and Ashok Kumar Chauhan, from whom recovery of one lakh rupees was made and who have been enlarged on bail, and further considering that the applicant has no other criminal history, the charge sheet in the matter has been filed, and the applicant is languishing in jail since 05.04.2025, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Ashok 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 :- 29.7.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench