HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23294 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record. 2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 190 of 2025, under Sections 281, 125(B), 105 B.N.S., Police Station- Uttar, District- Firozabad, during the pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant was neither arrested at the spot, nor was he involved in, or had any concern with, the alleged incident. As per the statement of the informant recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., he was not an eye-witness to the alleged incident and the vehicle number was mentioned on the basis of information received by him. Placing reliance upon the statements of the witnesses, namely, Laxman and Pankaj, it is further submitted that neither of them disclosed the vehicle number. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 16.5.2026 having no criminal antecedents and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned AGA for the State has 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 the applicant was not arrested at the spot. As per the statement of the informant recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., he was not an eye-witness to the alleged incident and vehicle number was Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Lavkush Dixit, Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, Siddharth Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ritik Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) mentioned on the basis of information received by him. As per the statements of the witnesses, namely, Laxman and Pankaj, the vehicle number has not been disclosed by them. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Further, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained confined for more than four months and after submission of 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 Ritik Kumar, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on 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. October 1, 2026 Manish Kr BAIL No. 23294 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad