HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34821 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nagendra Kumar Mishra, learned brief holder for the State and perused the record. 2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 149 of 2025, under Sections 351(3), 318(4), 111(2)(b), 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station- Cyber Crime, District- Agra during pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. False recovery of a mobile phone and a laptop has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The recovered mobile phone and laptop cannot be connected with the alleged offence. No amount has been credited in the bank account of the applicant. The applicant is not a beneficiary of any illicit transaction. The case of the applicant is clearly distinguishable from that of co-accused Haidar, Hani, Mani and Aman Dubey. 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 7.8.2025 having no criminal history. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned brief holder for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar Srivastava, Gaurav Aryan, Rohit Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Abdul Kadir .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 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. The recovered mobile phone and laptop does not link the applicant with the alleged offence. The applicant is not a beneficiary of any illicit transaction. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for more than two 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. 6. Let the applicant, Abdul Kadir involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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. 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 S.S. BAIL No. 34821 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad