Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29172 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7306 of 2025 Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pulak Ganguly Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Sri Pankaj Kumar Mishra, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the informant, the same is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Pankaj Kumar Mishra, counsel for the informant. Perused the record. 3. The instant bail application, under Section 483 B.N.S.S., has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 33 of 2025, under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 316(2), 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station- Chauri Chaura, District- Gorakhpur during pendency of the trial. 4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The informant was appointed as Assistant Teacher at Prathamic Vidyalaya Bahora Dalparapur, District Deoria by the order of District Basic Education Officer dated 22.11.2016. Prior to the issuance of the appointment letter there is no documentary evidence to establish that any amount was paid by the informant or his father to the applicant. It is contended that the applicant and the informant are relatives. Certain amount was transferred by the cousin brother of the informant in the account of the applicant on 18.9.2022. The said amount cannot be connected with the offence. The first informant report has been lodged belatedly. No forged document was made by the applicant. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 27 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 20.1.2025. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 5. Learned A.G.A. and counsel for the informant have 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 prior to the issuance of the appointment letter there is no documentary evidence to establish that any amount was paid by the informant or his father to the applicant. The first informant report has been lodged belatedly. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for more than one month 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. 7. Let the applicant, Vinay Kumar Yadav 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. 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 :- 3.3.2025 S.S. Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad