HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35510 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant 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. 147 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 352, 61(2), 125, 109(1), 3(5), 111(4), 324(4) BNS, Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 25/9 Arms Act, Police Station Bahsuma, District Meerut 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. As per the first information report, two groups were firing at each other. In the alleged incident, no person received any injury. The name of the applicant surfaced during the course of investigation. Vague and general role has been assigned 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. The applicant is in jail since 21.08.2025 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 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 the applicant was not named in the first Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Hemant Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rajkumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) information report. The name of the applicant surfaced during the course of investigation. In the alleged incident, no person received any injury. Vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. 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 Raj 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 14, 2025 Lbm/- BAIL No. 35510 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad