HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34652 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. 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. 50 of 2026, under Sections 105, 115(2), 303(2), 351(3), 352 B.N.S., Police Station Bidhnu, District Kanpur Nagar during the pendency of the trial. 3. Learned 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. Initially, the first information report was lodged under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352, 110 B.N.S. During investigation, injured Uday Baba succumbed to his injuries. Consequently, Section 110 B.N.S. was deleted and Sections 105, 303(2) B.N.S. were added. During the course of investigation, the injured Pawan Tripathi disclosed the name of co-accused Chand Babu @ Nisar @ Chhotu. The said Chand Babu while in police custody disclosed the name of the applicant. It is contended that the said statement insofar as it implicates the applicant is unreliable. The applicant neither assaulted the brother of the informant nor was involved in the alleged incident nor has committed any offence. It is next contended that no test identification parade was got conducted by the police authorities. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph- 29 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 09.03.2026 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jitendra Singh, Sonam Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Shubham Singh @ Bos .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Learned A.G.A. 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 the applicant was not named in the first information report. Co-accused Chand Babu @ Nisar @ Chhotu while in police custody disclosed the name of the applicant. No test identification parade was got conducted by the police authorities. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than six 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- Shubham Singh @ Bos, 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 SKT/- BAIL No. 34652 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad