Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:142721 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15442 of 2025 Applicant :- Praveen @ Sonu @ Mota Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Bahadur Singh,Suresh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Siddharth Singhal Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the initially the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown person. The name of the applicant surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused Rajesh Rai. He further submits that the alleged recovery of Rs. 4,20,000/- has been shown to be recovered from the possession of the applicant when in fact, the applicant was not seen in the C.C.T.V.footage and that the alleged recovery is false and fabricated. He further submits that there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. The police has shown the false recovery only to show their good work. It is thus contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the police due to ulterior motive. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 27.02.2025. 3. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. Learned counsel further argued that Rs. 4,20,000/- has been recovered from the possession of the applicant, however he could not dispute the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the alleged recovery has not been supported by any independent witness. 4. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view, that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 5. Let applicant Praveen @ Sonu @ Mota involved in Case Crime No.83 of 2025 under Sections 3(5), 127(2), 310(2), 317(3) of B.N.S., Police Station Sector-58, District Gautambudh Nagar, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:- i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court. iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission. v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. 6. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant in accordance with law. 7. The bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 19.8.2025/S.Ali Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad