Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:96314 Court No. - 68 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12191 of 2025 Applicant :- Mukesh Kamil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gyan Chandra Yadav,Shodan Singh,Vikrant Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. 1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today, which is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Gyanchandra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anil Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record. 3. This bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant, Mukesh Kamil, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 100 of 2025, under Sections 329 (3) BNS and Sections 03, 04, 05, 06 Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, Police Station Mawana, District Meerut. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused- applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this case crime number and is languishing in jail since 18.03.2025. He has no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the incident took place on 13.03.2025 and its FIR was lodged on 18.03.2025 without giving any explanation for delay in lodging the FIR. The applicant never received any notice from the District Magistrate or SDM regarding the earlier seizure activities of the hotel to the applicant alleged to have been made in the FIR version. Actually, the said seizure came in the knowledge of the applicant while his making arrest from his house on 18.03.2025. No offence is made out against the applicant under the aforesaid sections. In fact the applicant is being owner of the hotel has already given the said hotel on rent to Raju Saii/co-accused vide registered rent deed dated 25.01.2023 and after execution of the said rent deed the co- accused Raju Saini obtained the certificates of the different departments and the entire prosecution based on the version of S.I. Brajesh Kumar narrated against the applicant is fake, frivolous, concocted and base on no credible evidence against the applicant. Hence, bail has been prayed for. 6. Learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts. 7. Considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 9. Let the accused-applicant, Mukesh Kamil, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions: i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence. ii. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity. iii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial. iv. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned. 10. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 v.k.updh. Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad