HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30361 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Case called out in the revised list. Learned counsel for the informant is not present. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nagendra Kumar Mishra, learned Brief Holder for the State-opposite party. 3. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 198 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 105, 351(4) B.N.S., Police Station Farah, District Mathura during the pendency of the trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident has taken place on 18.05.2025. The first information report was lodged on 19.05.2025. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. Prior to registration of the first information report an information was sent by Constable Dilip to the police station concerned on 18.05.2025 regarding a road accident. Placing reliance upon the statement of the independent witnesses Devendra, Anil and Rajpal it is contended that two sons of the informant namely Tilak Singh and Vinod succumbed to the injuries sustained by them in the road accident. It is next contended that identically placed co-accused Tarachand Pradhan has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 22.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31116 of 2025, Tarachand Pradhan v. State of U.P. The applicant claims parity. The Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhilasha Singh, Ashutosh Yadav, Shyam Lal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ankit Mishra, G.A. Raju .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) applicant is in jail since 02.06.2025 having no criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 5. Learned Brief Holder for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that prior to registration of the first information report an information was sent by Constable Dilip to the police station concerned on 18.05.2025 regarding a road accident and identically placed co-accused Tarachand Pradhan has been granted bail by this Court. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for almost four months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and 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, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 7. Let the applicant- Raju, 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 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. 8. 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 9, 2025 SKT/- BAIL No. 30361 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad