Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36610 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1309 of 2025 Applicant :- Shavej Makki Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhiraj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party. 2. The instant bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 296 of 2024, under Sections 308(5), 352 B.N.S., Police Station Kotwali Mandi, District Saharanpur during the pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. No offence under Section 308(5) BNS is made out against the applicant. There is no allegation in the FIR nor in the statement of the informant recorded under Section 180 BNSS about delivery of any property or valuable security as referred in section 308 BNS. In support of his submission, counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Isaac Isanga Musumba and other Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2014 15 SCC 357. Identically placed co-accused Imran Ansari has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 23.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 41796 of 2024, Imran Ansari v. State of U.P. The applicant claims parity. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraphs- 11, 12 and 13 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 29.11.2024 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that there is no allegation in the FIR nor in the statement of the informant recorded under section 180 BNSS about delivery of any property or valuable security as referred in section 308 BNS. At present, there is no substantive evidence against the applicant. Identically placed co-accused Imran Ansari has been granted bail by this Court. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than three months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant- Shavej Makki, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that he: (i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; (ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and, (iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses. 7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 12.3.2025 SKT/- Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad