Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:142754 Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6244 of 2025 Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brajesh Kumar Maurya,Dharmendra Kumar,Maiku Lal Maurya,Shailendra Kumar,Shivbaboo Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Krishna Chandra Pandey,Revati Raman Vishwakarma Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Case called out. Counsel for the informant is not present. 2. This is second bail application. First bail application was dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 3.1.2025. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the material placed on record. 4. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 278 of 2024, under Sections 309(4), 309(6), 317(2) B.N.S., Police Station- Kokhraj, District- Kaushambi during pendency of the trial. 5. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. On the basis of information furnished by an informer the applicant was arrested along with co- accused Sheelu Patel and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of E-rickshaw has been shown. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Except the confessional statement of the applicant in police custody there is no credible evidence against him. No test identification parade was got conducted by the police authorities. Further, the co-accused Sheelu Patel has been bail by this Court vide order dated 7.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38197 of 2024. The applicant claims parity. The applicant does not have any criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 28.8.2024. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 6. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 7. 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 information report. On the basis of information furnished by an informer the applicant was arrested along with co- accused Sheelu Patel. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Except the confessional statement of the applicant in police custody, there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence. No test identification parade was got conducted by the police authorities. The co-accused Sheelu Patel has been bail by this Court. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for more than eleven 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. . 8. Let the applicant, Mukesh 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. 9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 S.S. Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad