HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28381 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri Nagendra Mishra, learned AGA for the State-opposite party and perused the material available on record. 2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 268 of 2024, under Sections 281, 106, 105, 183 B.N.S., Police Station- Nawabganj, District- Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 2.9.2024. The first information report was lodged on 9.9.2024. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. On the basis of information furnished by an informer the name of the applicant surfaced. It is contended that the said statement is unreliable. The applicant has not been identified on the basis of any CCTV footage. The statement of the informer does not connect the applicant with the offence. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant is in jail since 22.9.2024 and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this Court prima facie finds that the first information report was lodged belatedly; the applicant was not named in the first information report; on the basis of information furnished by an informer the name of the applicant surfaced. At this stage there is no substantive evidence to connect the applicant with the offence. Further, the applicant has no criminal antecedents Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Umesh Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ankit Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) and has remained confined for more than one year and a month 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 merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant Ankit Yadav, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on 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. 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. October 27, 2025 Manish Kr BAIL No. 28381 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad