HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28340 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Vishwadeep Patel, learned counsel for applicants as well as Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicants- Vivek Singh Patel and Aakash Patel, in Case Crime No.307 of 2025, under Sections 303(2), 317(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 339, 340 B.N.S. and Section 66 of I.T. Act, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Banda with the prayer to enlarge them on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants are not named in the FIR and they have nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about seventeen days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The CCTV footage of the said ATM was taken up and it was found that two persons were tampering with it and one of them was carrying the cash. 5. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicants that after perusal of the CCTV footage, the applicants and other co-accused person were arrested the next day. An amount of Rs.7,500/- and Rs.9,500/- is stated to have been recovered from the possession of the applicants, respectively, but the said amount cannot be connected with the amount stolen from the said ATM. There is no criminal history of the applicants. The applicants are in jail since 1.4.2025 and they are ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicants were identified being the persons who were tampering with the said ATM. As such, it is a open and shut case and the applicants are not entitled for bail. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that applicants were identified in the CCTV footage of the date of offence, I do not Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Yadav, Vishwadeep Patel Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vivek Singh Patel And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicants. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 8. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. 9. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. September 16, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 28340 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad