HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30605 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Bharti, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 194 of 2025, under Sections 140(2), 61(2), 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station- Mansoorpur, District- Muzaffar Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is not named in the FIR. The applicant is stated to have been arrested with the victim, but the allegations are per se false. He has nothing to do with the said offence. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the applicant alongwith co- accused person Milan @ Masoom was arrested by the police during combing by the police in the vicinity of the place of recovery of the victim. The names of two suspects Aditya and Jonny have come up several times even in the statement of the person who was owner of the said car Pinkesh, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. 6. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the case of applicant is at different footing to the said other two accused persons. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 3.7.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sunil Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Pankaj Bharti Harsh Mehra .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application. 8. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case of bail is made out. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that applicant is not named in the FIR and he was arrested alongwith one another accused person during combing by police, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima facie, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant- Harsh Mehra, who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. (Krishan Pahal,J.) September 15, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 30605 of 2025 2 Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad