Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93665 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10452 of 2025 Applicant :- Sanjai Jaiswal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Yogesh Tiwari Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Upendra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ramashankar Yadav, holding brief of Sri Yogesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 310 of 2024, under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 61(2), 351(3) of BNS, Police Station Machhalishahar, District Jaunpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR itself is delayed by about 14 years and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The wife of the applicant is stated to have purchased the land from the uncle of the informant in the year 2009. The said story is false as the matter of civil nature has been converted into criminal case by the informant. It is a clear cut case of false implication. 5. The criminal history assigned to the applicant has been explained in paragraph nos. 8 and 9 of the affidavit filed with the bail application. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.02.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. 7. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record and taking into consideration the delay in institution of the FIR, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant- Sanjai Jaiswal, who is involved in aforementioned 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 following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 11. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 30.5.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad