HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9802 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Shambhavi Nandan, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.520 of 2024, under Sections 308(2), 318(4), 61(2) B.N.S. and 66D of I.T. Act, Police Station- Jalesar, District- Etah, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, some unknown person is stated to have duped the informant to the tune of Rs.18,78,588/-, which was deposited in IDFC bank account and an amount of Rs.4,40,000/- is stated to have been deposited in another account. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The applicant is not named in the FIR. The amount of Rs.4,40,000/- was deposited in the account of one Indrajeet. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that not a single penny has been transferred to the account of the applicant. The name of applicant has come up in the confessional statement of said accused person Indrajeet. The said statement has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law being hit by Section 23 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. 7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the criminal Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bhism Shankar Yadav, Shambhavi Nandan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vishal .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) history of one case assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 2.12.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application. 9. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case of bail is made out. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that applicant is not named in the FIR and there being no transfer of any money to the account of the applicant, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima facie, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant- Vishal, who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 13. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. September 12, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 9802 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad