HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34161 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.73 of 2026, under Sections 331(8), 310(2), 311, 317(3), 61(2) BNS and Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act, Police Station- Nagphani, District- Moradabad, during pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The first information report was lodged against unknown persons with the allegation that Rs.1,20,00,000/-, which was kept in the house of the informant for execution of sale deed of a plot was looted along with gold ornaments. False recovery of a country made pistol, two live cartridges and Indian currency of Rs.2,50,000/- has been shown from the personal possession of the applicant and Rs. 17,05,000/- has been shown from a car, which does not belong to the applicant. The alleged recovery is false and planted. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The applicant is neither a member of any organized crime syndicate nor he acted on behalf of such syndicate. Further, co-accused Kuldeep Kumar and Ravi Kumar have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 09.09.2026 and 14.9.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.31656 of 2026 and 30647 of 2026 respectively. The applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 17.5.2026. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph nos.18 to 21 of the bail application and in case he is Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pankaj Sharma, Prashant Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Nadeem .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned A.G.A. for the State 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 named in the first information report. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Co-accused Kuldeep Kumar and Ravi Kumar have been granted bail by this Court. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for more than four 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 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, Nadeem involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that: i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness; iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court. 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. 34161 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad