HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35198 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, 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. 369 of 2024, under Sections 305A, 331(4), 317(2), 111(2) B.N.S., Police Station- Shahpur, District - Muzaffar Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. On the basis of information furnished by an informer, after two months of the alleged incident, the co-accused Rinku was arrested. The name of the applicant was disclosed by the co-accused Rinku while in police custody. The said statement, insofar as it implicates the applicant, is unreliable. False recovery of ornaments of white metal has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The recovered ornaments cannot be connected with the present offence. The applicant is not a member of any organized crime syndicate nor he acted on behalf of such syndicate. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para no.14 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 19.2.2025 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 dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : R.S. Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Shekhar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 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; his name was disclosed by the co-accused Rinku while in police custody; further, there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than seven 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 Shekhar, 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 Manish Kr BAIL No. 35198 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad