HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31807 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.124 of 2025, under Sections 109, 3(5), 111(6) B.N.S. and Section 3/25 of Arms Act, Police Station- Kotwali Konch, District Jalaun, during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is a case of firing on police party. No police personnel has received any injury. In fact, the applicant has received injury on his right leg. False recovery of a 'singhasan', of white metal, one android mobile phone, one live cartridges of 315 bore and Rs.500/- has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The recovered articles 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. Identically placed co-accused Raghvendra @ Rajveer Goswami has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 09.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 33217 of 2025. The applicant claims parity. Prior to the present case, the applicant was not having any criminal antecedents, however, after his arrest he has been implicated in another case. The applicant is in jail since 27.05.2025 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) : Anshuman Dixit, Vishnu Kant Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ranu Kushwaha .....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 no police personnel has received any injury; in fact, the applicant has received injury on his right leg; further, there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery; identically placed co-accused Raghvendra @ Rajveer Goswami has been granted bail by this Court. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than four 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 Ranu Kushwaha, 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 15, 2025 Lbm/- BAIL No. 31807 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad