Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:34878 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8253 of 2025 Applicant :- Rajnish Katiyar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Pati Tiwari,Shubham Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Copy of the statement of co-accused Nitin Kumar produced by learned A.G.A. is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Yogendra Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the State-opposite party. 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. 216 of 2024, under Sections 309(4), 317(2) B.N.S., Police Station Sikandara, District Kanpur Dehat 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 by co-accused Nitin Kumar in the police custody. The said statement insofar as it implicates the applicant is unreliable. False recovery of Rs.3750/- has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The recovered Indian currency cannot be connected with the alleged offence. Co-accused Nitin Kumar has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 13.02.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46903 of 2024, Nitin Kumar v. State of U.P. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph- 18 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 31.01.2025 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 5. Learned Brief Holder for the State has 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 by co-accused Nitin Kumar in the police custody. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Co-accused Nitin Kumar has been granted bail by this Court. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than one month 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- Rajnish Katiyar, 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 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 :- 10.3.2025 SKT/- Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad