HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27809 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jitendra Singh, counsel for the informant and Sri S.S.Pandey, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 118 of 2025, under Section 105(1), 238, 3(5) BNS, Police Station Kalan, District Shahjahanpur during the pendency of trial. 3. 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 name of the applicant was disclosed by Alok in police custody. The said statement insofar as it implicates the applicant, is unreliable. It is next contended that co-accused Alok has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 22.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25605 of 2025. The applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 10.06.2025 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned AGA and the counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned AGA further submits that the applicant was earlier involved in Case Crime No. 562 of 2020, under Sections 294, 504, 509 IPC, Police Station Kalan, District Sahjahanpur. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pawankumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Jitendra Singh Ankit Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused Alok in police custody. Alok has been granted bail by this Court. Further, t he applicant has remained confined for more than four months and after submission of 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 Ankit 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 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 13, 2025 Lbm/- BAIL No. 27809 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad