HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25918 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. At the outset Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA submits that the charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and the applicant has been summoned by the trial court vide order dated 20.02.2025. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 3. The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 70 of 2024, under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 240(2), 111 BNS, Section 66C and 66D I.T.(Amended) Act, and Section 3 Public Gambling Act, Police Station Cyber Crime Police Thana, District Azamgarh during the pendency of trial. 4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. False recovery of four mobile phones, four ATM cards, one Laptop and two bank passbooks has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The alleged SIMs used in the said mobile phones does not belong to the applicant. The recovered articles cannot be connected with the alleged offence. It is next contended that identically placed co-accused Ram Singh and Piyush Yadav have been granted bail by the co-ordinate bench of this Court vide orders dated 14.08.2025 and 15.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 27948 of 2025 and 29734 of 2025. The applicant claims parity. It is next contended that the applicant is not a member of any Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Atul Pandey, Deepesh Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sandeep Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) organized crime syndicate nor he acted on behalf of such syndicate. The applicant is in jail since 26.11.2024 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 5. Learned AGA 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 there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Identically placed co-accused Ram Singh and Piyush Yadav have been granted bail by the co-ordinate bench of this Court. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than ten 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 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. 7. Let the applicant Sandeep 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. 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 9, 2025 Lbm/- BAIL No. 25918 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad