HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31043 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit, filed by the counsel for the applicant, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Shubham Prakash Gupta, counsel for the informant. Perused the record. 3. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 121 of 2025, under Sections 331(8), 317(2) B.N.S., Police Station- Pahasu, District- Bulandshahar during pendency of the trial. 4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first informant report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 22.4.2025. The first information report was lodged on 24.4.2025. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. On the basis of C.C.T.V. footage the name of co-accused Jeetu surfaced. The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused Jeetu in police custody. It is contended that the said statement, insofar as it implicates the applicant, is unreliable. The alleged C.C.T.V. footage does not link the applicant with the offence. False recovery of battery and inverters has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The recovered articles cannot be be connected with the present applicant. The case of the applicant is clearly distinguishable from that of co-accused Jeetu. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vinod Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mukesh Chandra Gupta, Shubham Prakash Gupta Rakesh Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 6 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 25.4.2025. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 5. Learned A.G.A. for the State and counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 6. 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 informant report. The first information report has been lodged belatedly. The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused Jeetu in police custody. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Further, the applicant has presently remained confined for more than five months and 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 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. 7. Let the applicant, Rakesh Kumar involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that: i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness; iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court. 8. 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 S.S. BAIL No. 31043 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad