HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14920 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party. 2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 05 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 111(2)B/3(5) B.N.S. and 66(C), 66(D) Information and Technology Act, 2005, Police Station Cyber Crime, District Prayagraj during the pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The mobile number (9031717941), from which alleged call was made, does not belong to the applicant. During the course of investigation, the name of one Raj Kumar Yadav surfaced, who in turn disclosed the name of co-accused Rajnesh Kumar. Subsequently, upon analysis of the CDR details of the alleged mobile no. 9031717941 it was found that calls were made to various mobile numbers. Thereafter, the name of one Aakash Verma surfaced, who while in police custody disclosed the name of applicant. It is contended that the said statement, insofar as it implicates the applicant, is unreliable. False recovery of two mobile phones, five ATM cards, five Airtel sims and two passbooks of different banks have been Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raghavendra Pati Tripathi, Swati Agrawal Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Roshan Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) shown from the possession of the applicant. The recovered mobile phones, ATM cards, five Airtel sims and pass books do not link the applicant with the offence. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. No amount has been transferred in the bank account of the applicant. The applicant is not a beneficiary of any illicit transaction. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Further, the applicant is neither a member of any organized crime syndicate nor he acted on behalf of such syndicate. Investigation has been completed. Charge-sheet has been filed. No custodial interrogation is required. It is next contended that co-accused Shriniwas Kumar has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 15.04.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15665 of 2025 (Shriniwas Kumar v. State of U.P.). The applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 9.11.2024 having no criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. 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 Aakash Verma, while in police custody. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The co-accused Shriniwas Kumar has been granted bail by this Court. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for almost one year six months 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. 6. Let the applicant- Roshan Kumar involved in the aforesaid BAIL No. 14920 of 2025 2 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. 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. May 7, 2026 S.S. BAIL No. 14920 of 2025 3 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad