HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40437 of 2025 Court No. - 70 HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State- opposite party. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 348 of 2025, under Sections 310(2), 352, 61(2) BNS, Police Station Bairia, District Ballia, during pendency of the trial. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the subject case. Learned counsel submits that applicant has not committed the alleged crime as well as nothing incriminating has been recovered from his possession. There is no independent witness of the alleged incident. Except this case, the applicant has also involved in three other cases, in which, he has already granted bail by the court concerned. The applicant is in jail since 23.09.2025. Further submission is that similarly placed co-accused of the applicant have already granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order(s) dated 13.11.2025, 05.01.2026, 1.12.2025, 18.11.2025 and 17.11.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 36630 of 2025 (Manish Verma vs. State of U.P.), No. 45462 of 2025 (Chepur @ Abhi Rathaur Abhinash @ Abhiram @ Nitish vs. State of U.P.), No. 41358 of 2025 (Golu Paswan vs. State of U.P.), No. 39259 of 2025 (Sonu Kumar Paswan vs. State of U.P.) and No. 40399 of 2025 (Dipesh Yadav alias Deepu Yadav vs. State of U.P.), respectively. Learned counsel for the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anand Kumar Shukla, Ashok Kumar Maurya, Devottam Pandey, Lok Nath Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pappu Chaubey @ Aneesh Chaubey .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) applicant has further submitted that if the applicant is also released on bail on parity, he would not misuse liberty of bail and is ready to co-operate in the trial. Learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is no illegality in the bail rejection order, but does not dispute the fact that similarly placed co-accused of the applicant have already granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this Court prima facie finds that a vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. At this stage there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Co-accused of the applicant have already granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than seven 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 applicants, 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 applicants are entitled to be enlarged on bail. Bail Application is allowed. Let the applicants-Pappu Chaubey @ Aneesh Chaubey, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on 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. 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 Brijesh BAIL No. 40437 of 2025 2 (Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.) Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad