HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28460 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.S.Pandey, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 96 of 2025, under Sections 180, 181, 182, 111(2) BNS, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Muzaffar Nagar during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. False recovery of a colour printer and counterfeit currency has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. It is contended that identically placed co-accused Guddu and Ritesh @ Vipin have been granted bail by the co-ordinate bench of this Court vide orders dated 25.06.2025 and 14.08.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.19476 of 2025 and 27892 of 2025. The applicant claims parity. It is next contended that the applicant is not a member of any organized crime syndicate nor he acted on behalf of such syndicate. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 23 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 30.03.2025 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Hemant Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sugnu Alias Akash .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Court prima facie finds that there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Identically placed co-accused Guddu and Ritesh @ Vipin have been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than six months and after submission of charge sheet 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. 6. Let the applicant Sugnu @ Akash, 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 the 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. October 8, 2025 Lbm/- BAIL No. 28460 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad