HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34733 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shashank Shekhar Pandey, learned AGA for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record. 2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 37 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 111(4), 317(2) B.N.S. and Section 66-D of Information Technology Act, Police Station- Cyber Crime Azamgarh, District - Azamgarh, during the pendency of 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 name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused Arjun Singh while in police custody. The said statement, insofar as it implicates the applicant, is unreliable. Recovery of two mobile phones and Indian currency of Rs.120/- has been shown from the applicant. The said articles belong to the applicant and do not link the applicant with any offence. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. No amount relating to the alleged transaction has been credited to the bank account of the applicant. The applicant is not a beneficiary of any illicit transaction. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is neither a member of any organized crime syndicate nor he acted on behalf of such syndicate. Identically placed co-accused Vinayak Malviya has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 6.4.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1718 of 2026. The applicant claims Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jitendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sarfaraj .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) parity. The applicant is in jail since 07.12.2025 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 named in the first information report. The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused Arjun Singh while in police custody. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Identically placed co-accused Vinayak Malviya has been granted bail by this Court. Moreover, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained confined for almost nine months 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 the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant Sarfaraj 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. September 30, 2026 S.S. BAIL No. 34733 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad