HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12000 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record. 2.It is alleged in the prosecution case that the complainant was called to Puja on 9.10.2025 at 6.30p.m. at the house of one Meenakshi, where there was a lady inside the house. She closed the door and obscene video was made by somebody when the complainant was in compromising position. Showing that video, Rs.10,000/- cash, one gold chain and from the cheque of the complainant, Rs.1 lac has been withdrawn by the co- accused Jaishek Singh. 3.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not named in the first information report. The applicant has been falsely implicated. The alleged recovery of Rs.16,100/- is false. The alleged video footage has not been recovered by the investigating officer. Role of the applicant is distinct from the co-accused Jaishek Singh whose complicity is evident from the first information report. The applicant has no previous criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 16.10.2025. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raghvendra P. Singh, Mohd. Sheraj Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Suraj Singh .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) bail. 4.Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. 5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, specific role of committing the offence is on Jaishek Singh in the prosecution case, there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery from the applicant, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. 6.Let the applicant Suraj Singh, involved in Case Crime No.648 of 2025 under sections 309(4), 127(2), 351(3), 61(2)(A), 317(2) BNS, P.S. Kotwali Ayodhya, district Ayodhya, 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) 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 and he shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial 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. Any other condition(s) which the trial court/court concerned may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed. 7.The application is allowed accordingly. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merit of the BAIL No. 12000 of 2025 2 trial. December 4, 2025 kkb/ BAIL No. 12000 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench