HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30040 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anupam Anand, learned Brief Holder 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. 151 of 2025, under Section 111(i)(iii) B.N.S., Police Station Iglas, District Aligarh during the pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Earlier the applicant was granted bail in the aforesaid case crime number under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 317(2), 61(2) B.N.S.. After submission of charge-sheet, Section 111(i)(iii) B.N.S. has been added by the Investigating Officer. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. It is next contended that the applicant is not a member of any organized crime syndicate nor he acted on behalf of such syndicate. Identically placed co-accused Ajay Kumar has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 22.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24250 of 2025, Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P. The applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 16.03.2025 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned Brief Holder for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not 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 earlier the applicant was granted bail Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajaj Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rahul Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) in the aforesaid case crime number under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 317(2), 61(2) B.N.S. Identically placed co-accused Ajay Kumar has been granted bail by this Court. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for almost seven 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- Rahul Kumar, 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. 30040 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad