Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:31225 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7655 of 2025 Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Kumar Yadav,Vijeta Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Sri Manoj Kumar Dubey, Advocate, has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the informant. The same is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Yogendra Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the State-opposite party, and Sri Manoj Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the informant. 3. The instant bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 351 of 2024, under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 351(3), 338, 339, 341, 61(2) B.N.S., Police Station Kithor, District Meerut during the pendency of the trial. 4. Learned 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 in the second statement of the informant to the police. It is contended that the second statement is an afterthought and discredits the prosecution case. As per the allegations in the first information report, cash as well as cheque was given to co-accused Ashish Sharma. A vague role has been assigned to the applicant. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph-15 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 26.10.2024 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 5. Learned Brief Holder for the State and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of 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 in the second statement of the informant to the police. A vague role has been assigned to the applicant. As per the allegations in the first information report, cash as well as cheque was given to co-accused Ashish Sharma. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for almost four months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and 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, therefore, 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- Manoj Kumar, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of 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. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 SKT/- Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad