HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34131 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, 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. 37 of 2025, under Sections 105, 190, 191(2) B.N.S., Police Station Phoolpur, District Varanasi 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 name of the applicant was disclosed by the informant in his second statement recorded after one month of the alleged incident. It is contended that the said statement is an afterthought. Identically placed co- accused Sandeep Kumar and Rajkumar have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 24.06.2025 and 25.06.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 20086 of 2025, Sandeep Kumar v. State of U.P., and 19672 of 2025, Rajkumar v. State of U.P., respectively. The applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 04.08.2025 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 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 name of the applicant was disclosed by the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amarnath Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Surendra .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) informant in his second statement recorded after one month of the alleged incident. Identically placed co-accused Sandeep Kumar and Rajkumar have been granted bail by this Court. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than two 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- Surendra, 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 14, 2025 SKT/- BAIL No. 34131 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad