HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19408 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Nitin Pant, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mohammad Danish, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Amit Kumar, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.112 of 2025, under Sections 309(6), 333, 317(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Kundarki, District Moradabad, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have been seen by the father of the informant leaving the house, which raised a presumption that he had stolen an amount of Rs.70,000/- kept in the house, which was found missing from the house. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has argued that the FIR did not mention a single word about any incident of assault. The said story has been changed drastically and recovery of A.T.M. Card, Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, Rs.10,200/- cash, C.M.P. etc. has been foisted on the applicant. The said story has been inflated out of vengeance. The criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.04.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nitin Pant, Thakur Prasad Dubey, Zafeer Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mohammad Danish Zaid .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is recovery of heavy amount of articles from the applicant, which belong to the informant himself, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the said discrepancy between the FIR and the prosecution story which has been changed subsequently, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant- Zaid, 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 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. 9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 10. 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. September 12, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 19408 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad