Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35028 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8387 of 2025 Applicant :- Satendra Alias Neesu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Heard counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State- opposite party. Perused the record. 2. 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. 330 of 2024, under Sections 305, 331(4), 317(2) B.N.S., Police Station Linepar, District Firozabad, during the pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. On the basis of information furnished by the informer, the applicant was arrested along with co-accused and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of three batteries has been shown from the joint possession of applicant and other co-accused. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Recovery of Rs.1230/- has also been shown from the applicant. The said Indian currency belongs to him. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph nos.8, 9 and 10 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 30.01.2025 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. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. At this stage, there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Further, the applicant has 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 delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant Satendra Alias Neesu, involved in the aforesaid 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 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 Manish Kr Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad