HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33305 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, S.S. Pandey, 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. 0031 of 2026, under Sections 317(2), 317(5), 318(4) and 111(2) B.N.S., Police Station- Cyber Crime, District- Bareilly during pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. On the basis of the information furnished by an informer the applicant was arrested. False recovery of three mobile phones and Rs.1510/- has been shown from the applicant. 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. The recovered mobile phones and Indian currency do not link the applicant with the alleged offence. The applicant is neither a member of any organized crime syndicate nor he acted on behalf of such syndicate. The applicant is in jail since 14.7.2026 having no criminal history. In case he is 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. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Apurva Prakash Tiwari, Prabhat Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rahul Mishra .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 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. 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, Rahul Mishra 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. September 29, 2026 S.S. BAIL No. 33305 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad