HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36743 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned AGA for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record. 2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 522 of 2025, under Sections 303(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 111(2) (b) B.N.S., Police Station- Sikohabad, District - Firozabad, during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The name of the applicant was subsequently disclosed by the informant in his statement under Section 180 B.N.S.S. It is contended that the said statement is an afterthought. Further, the alleged two tractors were recovered from the possession of co-accused Vijendra and Devki Nandan. The applicant has no role in the alleged incident. Further, identically placed co- accused Bhudev @ Chhoti Wala Pandit has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 17.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 36394 of 2025. The applicant claims parity. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 17 of the affidavit. The applicant is neither a member of any organized crime syndicate nor he acted on behalf of such syndicate. The applicant is in jail since 13.8.2025 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. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dwijendra Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ramu Yadav .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Home Gov. Of U.P. At Lucknow .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report; his name was subsequently disclosed by the informant in his statement under Section 180 B.N.S.S. and the alleged two tractors were recovered from the possession of co-accused Vijendra and Devki Nandan. Identically placed co-accused Bhudev @ Chhoti Wala Pandit has been granted bail by this Court. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than two months 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 the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant Ramu Yadav, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his 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; 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. October 30, 2025 Lbm/- BAIL No. 36743 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad