HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35516 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.183 of 2025, under Sections 352, 74, 351(3), 115(2), 76, 77, 78, 140(3), 296, 111(3) BNS, Police Station Ubhaon, District Ballia, 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. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 30.06.2025. The victim was recovered at 2:00 p.m. on the same day. The first information report was lodged on 01.07.2025 at 03.47 p.m. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. The name of the applicant was disclosed by the independent witness Arun Kumar. The said statement is an after thought. The victim was not abducted by the applicant. As per the medical report, the victim has not sustained any injury. There are contradictions in the statements of the victim under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS. The said contradictions discredit the prosecution case. No indecent photograph/video was recovered by the Investigating Officer. 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 named co-accused Vipin Yadav has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 13.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31427 of 2025. The applicant claims parity. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 24 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Babhru Vahan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ajit Kumar Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 11.09.2025 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 information report. The name of the applicant was disclosed by an independent witness Arun Kumar. As per the medical report, the victim has not sustained any injury. There are contradictions in the statements of the victim under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS. No indecent photograph/video was recovered by the Investigating Officer. The named co-accused Vipin Yadav 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 Ajit Kumar Yadav, 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. 35516 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad