HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28983 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State- opposite party. 2. The instant bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.13 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 111(2)(b) and 61(2)a B.N.S., 2023, Police Station- Rajpura, District- Sambhal during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The name of the applicant surfaced during the course of investigation. There is no evidence that the applicant is a member of any organised crime syndicate or he acted on behalf of such syndicate. It is next contended that identically placed co-accused namely Nitin Chaudhary has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 19.05.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14995 of 2025. The applicant claims parity. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph 30 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 05.07.2025 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sandip Kumar Shukla, Sunil Kumar, Zahid Khan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Nawaz Ahmad .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie findsthat the applicant was not named in the first information report. The name of the applicant surfaced during the course of investigation and an identically placed co-accused namely Nitin Chaudhary has been granted bail by this Court. Further the applicant has remained confined for almost three months and after submission of the 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. 6. Let the applicant Nawaz Ahmad, 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 Prachi BAIL No. 28983 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRACHI KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad