HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30821 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party. 2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 155 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 105, 351(2), 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station Phaphamau, District Prayagraj during the pendency of the trial. 3. Learned 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 13.06.2025. The first information report was lodged on 16.06.2025. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. As per the first information report, the named co- accused Kunal and Honey are alleged to have assaulted the brother of the informant namely Govind Prasad. The brother of the informant succumbed to his injuries. In the second statement of the informant recorded after twelve days of the alleged incident, the name of the applicant was disclosed. It is contended that the said statement is an afterthought. A vague role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender who caused injury to the deceased. The applicant is in jail since 02.07.2025 having no criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ramesh Kumar Saroj .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The first information report has been lodged belatedly. In the second statement of the informant recorded after twelve days of the alleged incident, the name of the applicant was disclosed. A vague role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender who caused injury to the deceased. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than three months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and 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, therefore, 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- Ramesh Kumar Saroj, 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 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 15, 2025 SKT/- BAIL No. 30821 of 2025 2 Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad