Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:12187 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2426 of 2025 Applicant :- Mujammil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anjali Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Rishi Chaddha, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party. Perused the record. 2. The instant bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 653 of 2024, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 61(2), 340(2), 351(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Dibai, District Bulandshahr, during the pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The sale deed was executed by the father of the applicant namely, Mohd. Ismail. Neither the applicant was seller or purchaser nor the witness of the alleged sale deed. No amount was credited in the account of the applicant. The applicant is not a beneficiary of the illicit transaction. It is next contended that the proceedings u/s 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act with regard to the aforesaid land are also pending before the competent court. The case of the applicant is clearly distinguishable from that of other co-accused. The applicant is in jail since 04.12.2024 and if he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The sale deed was executed by the father of the applicant namely, Mohd. Ismail. No amount was credited in the account of the applicant. The case of the applicant is clearly distinguishable from that of other co- accused. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than one month 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 merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant Mujammil, involved in the aforesaid 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 the conditions that he: (i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; (ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (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. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Manish Kr Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad