HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8730 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record. 2.It is alleged in the prosecution case that while the complainant and his family went to Ayodhya to attend marriage function of his daughter on 27.2.2024 at about 5.00 O'clock, a message was received of his neighbour on phone. He was apprised that the door of his house is open. He came to know through video cll of his neighbour that theft has taken place in his house. He reached at his house and found that Rs.80,000/- cash, gold and silver ornaments, coins are stolen from his house whereas Rs.10,000/- as well as gold and silver ornaments were stolen from the house of the informant's brother. 3.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accused Ankul has been granted bail vide order dated 23.6.2025 passed by Trial Court (Annexure-19). The alleged recovery of Rs.22,000/- and the various other articles are not from the personal search of the applicant. No test identification parade has been conducted. The offences are punishable less than seven years. The applicant has explained criminal history of 13 cases in para 31 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 5.2.2025. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Himanshu Singh, Shashwat Dwivedi, Yash Joshi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mohd. Shoeb .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. 4.Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. 5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicant has explained criminal history, bail order of the co-accused, referred to above, severity of the punishment, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. 6.Let the applicant Mohd. Shoeb, involved in Case Crime No.125 of 2024 under sections 457, 380, 411 I.P.c., P.S. Madiyaon, district Lucknow 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court and he shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. Any other condition(s) which the trial court/court concerned may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed. 7.The application is allowed accordingly. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the BAIL No. 8730 of 2025 2 present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merit of the trial. December 10, 2025 kkb/ BAIL No. 8730 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench