Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36116 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8634 of 2025 Applicant :- Dhaniram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State-opposite party. Perused the record. 2. The instant bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.341 of 2024, under Sections 331(4), 305, 324(1), 317(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Banpur, District Lalitpur, 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 two other co-accused and has been falsely implicated in the present case. False recovery of ornaments of yellow and white metal has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Recovery of a mobile phone has also been shown from the applicant. The said mobile phone belongs to him. The recovered items cannot be connected with the alleged offence. It is next contended that identically placed co- accused, Ramgopal has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 11.03.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8525 of 2025 (Ramgopal vs. State of U.P.). The applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 14.01.2025 having no criminal history 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. Identically placed co-accused, Ramgopal has been granted bail by this Court. At this stage, there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Further, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained confined for almost two months 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 Dhaniram, 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 :- 12.3.2025 Sachin Mishra Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad