Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74453 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15448 of 2025 Applicant :- Nasudi Alias Ramkesh Dharikar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Radha Kant Singh,Ram Awadh Saroj Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Radha Kant Singh and Sri Ram Awadh Saroj, learned counsels for the applicant and Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 751 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201 & 364A of IPC, Police Station - Handia, District - Prayagraj, 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 is delayed by about four days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. No accused was named in the FIR. 5. Learned counsel has also stated that the co-accused Shailendra @ Pintoo and Vijay Kaul were arrested by the police and they have nominated the applicant in their confession before police. The said confessional statement is barred by Section 25 of Evidence Act and has no evidentiary value. There is no evidence against the applicant except the said confessional statement. 6. Learned counsel has further stated that criminal history of four cases assigned to the applicant stands explained and they were minor offence triable by Magistrate and he has been released on bail after confessing in the said cases. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.07.2024 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 AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. 8. 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. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, delay in lodging the FIR and the fact that the applicant was not named in the FIR and his name has come up in the confessional statement of co-accused persons which is barred by Section 25 of Evidence Act, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant- Nasudi Alias Ramkesh Dharikar, 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 12. 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:- 7.5.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad