HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12243 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. 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. 48 of 2026, under Sections 318(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 3(5) B.N.S. and 3/7 Essential Commodity Act, Police Station- Kurawali, District- Mainpuri during pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant was apprehended along with co-accused Ankit Yadav at a petrol pump owned and operated by the said co-accused. The said petrol pump is exclusively run and managed by co- accused Ankit Yadav, who is the proprietor of Anchan Petroleum Limited. The applicant has no concern whatsoever with the installation of dispensing unit or with sale and distribution of diesel & petrol. The applicant has not violated any provisions of U.P. High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Diesel Oil (Maintenance of supply and distribution) Order 1981 or the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order 2005. The applicant has not forged or manipulated any documents. The case of the applicant is clearly distinguishable from that of co-accused Ankit Yadav. The applicant is in jail since 10.2.2026 having no criminal history. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Kumar Singh, Jeet Narayan Dubey, Shyam Shankar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Radheshyam @ Radheshyam Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 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 at this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for more than two 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, Radheshyam @ Radheshyam Singh 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. April 20, 2026 S.S. BAIL No. 12243 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad