HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33470 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State-respondent. Perused the material available on record. 2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 216 of 2025, under Sections 318(2), 111 BNS and Section 66C I.T.Act, Police Station Lalpur-Pandeypur, District Varanasi, during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant's name surfaced in the first information report solely on the basis of statement made by co-accused Shubham Agrahari alias Gopal in police custody. The said statement insofar as it implicates the applicant, is unreliable. False recovery of four SIMs , a mobile phone and Rs.10, 340/- has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The recovered SIMs cannot be connected with any offence. The said Indian currency and mobile phone belong to the applicant. It is next contended that the applicant is not a member of any organized crime syndicate nor he acted on behalf of such syndicate. Investigation has been completed. Charge sheet has been filed. It is next contended that identically placed co-accused Arun Tripathi has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 09.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.31988 of 2025. Applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 17.08.2025 having no criminal antecedents and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dinesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Neyaj Ahmad .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery and identically placed co-accused Arun Tripathi has been granted bail by this Court. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than one month 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 Neyaj Ahmad, 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 10, 2025 Manish Kr BAIL No. 33470 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad