HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35452 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, 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. 271 of 2025, under Sections 310(3), 317(3), 111(2)(A) B.N.S., Police Station- Chhata, District -Mathura, during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 22.5.2025. The first information report was lodged on 23.5.2025. The applicant was arrested in Case Crime No.0492 of 2025, Police Station - Highway, District Mathura, under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and has been falsely implicated in the present case. False recovery has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Except the confessional statement of the applicant in police custody, at this stage there is no credible evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is neither a member of any organized crime syndicate nor he acted on behalf of such syndicate. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraphs- 14 and 16 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 26.5.2025 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Durga Kumari, Gaurav Dwivedi, Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Anil Sharma .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 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 applicant was not named in the first information report and except the confessional statement of the applicant in police custody, at this stage there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for almost five months and after submission of the charge-sheet 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- Anil Sharma, 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 28, 2025 SKT/- BAIL No. 35452 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad