HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34598 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nagendra Kumar Mishra, learned Brief Holder for the State-opposite party. 2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 238 of 2026, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) B.N.S. and 66-D I.T. Act, Police Station- Phase III, District - Gautam Buddha Nagar, during the pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. False recovery of two mobile phones and Indian currency of Rs.500/- has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Recovered articles do not link the applicant with any offence. The applicant is not a beneficiary of any illicit transaction. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to connect the applicant with the offence. Identically placed co-accused Ankit Kumar has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 25.08.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 27798 of 2026. The applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 18.06.2026 having no criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned Brief Holder for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manu Sharma, Tarun Sonkar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Raj Shekhar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) connect the applicant with the offence. Identically placed co-accused Ankit Kumar has been granted bail by this Court. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than three months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and 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, therefore, 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- Raj Shekhar, 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 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 29, 2026 Manish Kr BAIL No. 34598 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad