HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27586 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. 248 of 2025, under Section 105 BNS, Police Station Govind Nagar, District Mathura during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The name of the applicant was disclosed by the informant in his statement under Section 180 BNSS. In the said statement the role of threatening has been assigned to the applicant. Further, in the statement of the informant under Section 183 BNSS there are no allegations against the applicant. It is contended that the applicant has no role in the alleged incident. The construction activity was carried out by the named co-accused Suneel Chain. It is next contended that identically placed co-accused Krishna Sharan Agrawal has been granted anticipatory bail till submission of police report by this Court vide order dated 07.08.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.6340 of 2025. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 2 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 17.06.2025 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Daga, Devesh Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pappu .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The name of the applicant was disclosed by the informant in his statement under Section 180 BNSS. In the said statement the role of threatening has been assigned to the applicant. In the statement of the informant under Section 183 BNSS there are no allegations against the applicant. At this stage, there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Identically placed co-accused Krishna Sharan Agrawal has been granted anticipatory bail till submission of police report by this Court. The applicant has remained confined for more than three 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 Pappu, 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 7, 2025 Lbm/- BAIL No. 27586 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad