HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30076 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. 151 of 2025, under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 111(4), 3(5) BNS, Police Station Barla, District Aligarh 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 motorcycle and motorcycle parts has been shown. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. At this stage, there is no credible evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Identically placed co-accused Abid Khan has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 7.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31561 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. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraphs 15 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 22.07.2025 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 Court prima facie finds that there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The co-accused Abid Khan has been granted bail by this Court. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashish Kumar, Kuldeep Singh Tomar, Rajesh Kumar Vishwakarma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Veeresh Kumar Alias Veeresh Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than two months 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. 6. 6. Let the applicant Veeresh Kumar @ Veeresh Yadav, 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 S.S. BAIL No. 30076 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad