HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6520 of 2025 Court No. - 70 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. List revised. None appears on behalf of informant. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though in the F.I.R. the informant has alleged that the for providing work permit to his son in Canada all the accused named in the F.I.R. took twenty eight lakh rupees from him, but later on a compromise has been arrived at between the informant and accused persons wherein it has been settled that the accused have returned twenty six lakh rupees to the informant. Learned counsel further submits that the informant in his subsequent statement (C.D.-2) has also stated that the applicant had returned entire money to him. Thus, it has been argued that applicant is entitled to bail at this stage. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that the applicant is in jail since 26.12.2024, with no previous criminal history. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Praveen Shrivastav, Krishn Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Vinod Singh, G.A. Manjeet Singh @ Inder .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. 5. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence and without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed. 6. Let the applicant-Manjeet Singh @ Inder, be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 77 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Milak, District- Rampur, on executing a personal bond and furnishing two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court. iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission. v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. 7. In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant in accordance with law. September 10, 2025 Mustaqeem. BAIL No. 6520 of 2025 2 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad