HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11150 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Ganesh Mani, learned counsel for applicant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.32 of 2025, under Sections 140(2) B.N.S. and 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station- Gangoh, District- Saharanpur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have abducted the son of the informant aged about 10 years on 24.1.2025 at about 01:00 p.m. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by about ten hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Subsequently, the victim was recovered on 27.1.2025, but the allegations are per se false that the applicant had abducted him. The victim was recovered from an open place which was accessible to one and all. The false recovery has been foisted on the applicant. 6. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was a teacher in the Madarsa run by the informant and the informant in order to usurp his salary has foisted the instant case against Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ganesh Mani Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mohd. Usama .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) the applicant. The applicant has not been paid the salary for several months, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 27.1.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim has been examined and he has stated that applicant and one another accused person had brought him after abducting him to the place where he had been recovered with the applicant, as such, it is an open and shut case and the applicant is not entitled for bail. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that there is recovery of the victim alongwith the applicant in presence of police, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. 11. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. September 12, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 11150 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad