Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35047 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6175 of 2025 Applicant :- Sunil Yadav Alias Nanhke Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State-respondent and perused the record. 2. The instant bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 216 of 2024, under Sections 310(2), 317(3), 317(5), 61(2) BNS, Police Station Syed Raza, District Chandauli, during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The name of the applicant was disclosed by the co-accused Achchelal Gupta in police custody. The said statement insofar as it implicates the applicant is unreliable. The co-accused Achchelal Gupta has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 10.01.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 47387 of 2024. The case of the applicant is on better footing to that of co-accused Achchelal Gupta. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 20 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 10.12.2024 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. 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. The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused Achchelal Gupta in police custody. The co-accused Achchelal Gupta has been granted bail by this Court. At this stage, there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant has remained confined for three 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. 6. Let the applicant Sunil Yadav @ Nanhke, 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; (iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses. 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. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 Lbm/- Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad