Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:13156 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29678 of 2024 Applicant :- Pawan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Uppadhaya,Gauri Shanker Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the State, is taken on record. 2. Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri Rishi Chaddha, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. This second bail application, under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 55 of 2023, under Sections 394, 411 I.P.C., Police Station- Akrabad, District- Aligarh. The first bail application being Criminal Misc. First Bail Application No. 22578 of 2023 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 02.06.2023. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Further, during the course of trial, the injured was examined as P.W. 1. The injured has not supported the prosecution version and has been declared hostile by the trial court vide order dated 09.01.2025. The order dated 09.01.2025 is annexed as Annexure-1 to the rejoinder affidavit. It is next contended that the co-accused Chandu has been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 12.06.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21174 of 2024. The applicant is in jail since 29.01.2023 having no criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 5. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 6. After hearing the rival contentions and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the injured-P.W. 1 in his examination in chief has not supported the prosecution version and has been declared hostile by the court concerned. Further, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained confined for almost two years and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when 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, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 7. Let the applicant- Pawan, 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 she: (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. 8. 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 :- 24.1.2025 RPD Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad