HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21398 of 2025 Court No. - 70 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. The F.I.R. was lodged against two persons and in that F.I.R. the name of applicant does not find place. The informant in the F.I.R. has made allegation of committing murder by firearm weapon to both the named accused. Later on the informant in his statement before the police has stated that due to mistake he disclosed the name of Shiva alias Shivam Raghav along with the co- accused Aditya Raghav and actually the applicant was along with the said co-accused Aditya Raghav. The alleged eye witnesses in their statement have also assigned the role of firing to one named accused-Aditya Raghav. Thus, there are material contradictions in the statements of informant and in other eye witnesses and also in the version of F.I.R. The named co-accused, Shiva alias Shivam Raghav has already been enlarged on bail. One co-accused, who was declared to be juvenile has already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court. 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 the applicant is languishing in jail since 06.11.2024, with no previous criminal history. 3. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently 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. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ravikar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Zafeer Ahmad, G.A. Harsh Chaudhary .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence and without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed. 5. Let the applicant-Harsh Chaudhary, be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 1005 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 3(5) of B.N.S. and Section 3(1), 9(1), A(1), 25(2), 27 of Arms Act, Police Station- Majhaula, District- Moradabad, on executing a personal bond and furnishing two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with 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 any 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 default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant in accordance with law. September 17, 2025 Mustaqeem. BAIL No. 21398 of 2025 2 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad