HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25836 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nagendra Kumar Mishra, learned Brief Holder 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. 11 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 111, 336(3), 338, 340(2) B.N.S.; 66C, 66D of I.T. Act; and 3 of Public Gambling Act, Police Station Cyber Crime, District Azamgarh during the pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The alleged mobile number (9101828075), from which call was made to the informant, does not belong to the applicant. The alleged sum of Rs.5,000/- was neither received nor transferred to the bank account of the applicant. The applicant is not a beneficiary of the illicit transaction. The implication of the applicant in the present case surfaced on the basis of the information furnished by an informer. There is no report from the Cyber Cell to indicate that the mobile number of the applicant was used in or is in any manner linked to the commission of the present offence at any stage. Recovery of a mobile phone has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The recovered mobile phone belongs to the applicant. The alleged mobile phone also does not connect the applicant with the offence. It is next contended that the applicant is neither a member of any organized crime syndicate nor he acted on behalf of such syndicate. The applicant is in jail since 10.04.2025 having no criminal Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Deeksha Gupta, Rahul Kumar, Siddharth Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mohd Rafeeq .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned Brief Holder for the State 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 implication of the applicant in the alleged offence surfaced on the basis of the information furnished by an informer. 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 applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than one year 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- Mohd. Rafeeq, 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. 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 5, 2026 SKT/- BAIL No. 25836 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad