Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33826 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37011 of 2024 Applicant :- Ankur @ Sagar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Avadhesh Pratap Singh,Mrigraj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. for the State is taken on record. 2. Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri Neeraj Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party and perused the record. 3. The instant bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0185 of 2024 under Sections 318(4), 303(2), 317(2) B.N.S., Police Station- Sadarbazar, District- Mathura, during the pendency of the trial. 4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 03.07.2024. The first information report was lodged 19.07.2024. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. The applicant was arrested on 21.07.2024 in Case Crime No. 0188 of 2024, under Sections 3/35 Arms Act, Police Station- and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of Indian currency of Rs. 1,200/- and eight ATM cards has been been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The alleged ATM cards cannot be connected with any offence. At this stage, there is no credible evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para nos. 21 and, 22 of bail application. The applicant is in jail since 21.07.2024 and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid facts from the record. 6. Having heard 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 F.I.R. was lodged belatedly. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The applicant has remained confined for more than six 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 merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 7. Let the applicant- Ankur @ Sagar, involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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; (iv) shall appear on the first Sunday of every month at the Police Station concerned. 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. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Kumar Manish Digitally signed by :- MANISH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad