HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33294 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. 257 of 2025, under Section 303(2), 62, 105, 351(2) BNS, Police Station Tirva, District Kannauj, during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The co-accused Shyam Singh and Roshal Lal were apprehended at the spot and the mobile of the deceased was recovered from them. A vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. It is next contended that identically placed co-accused Amit @ Murari and Shayam Singh have been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 09.09.2025 and 16.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 29941 of 2025 and 31679 of 2025. The applicant claims parity. Investigation has been completed. Charge sheet has been filed. The applicant is in jail since 18.06.2025 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 a vague and general role has been assigned to Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjeev Kumar Trivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ankit .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) the applicant. Identically placed co-accused Amit @ Murari and Shayam Singh have been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The applicant has remained confined for more than three 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. Let the applicant Ankit, 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 9, 2025 Lbm/- BAIL No. 33294 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad