HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11843 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. 09 of 2026, under Section 109(1) B.N.S., and Section 3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act and Section 3/25/28 Arms Act, Police Station- Nai Mandi, District- Muzaffarnagar during pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is a case of firing on the police party. No police personnel has received any injury. In fact, the applicant has received injury on his right leg. False recovery of two country made pistol, two live cartridges and 18 kg. cow meat has been shown from the joint possession of the applicant and co-accused Daood. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. It is next contended that the co-accused Daood has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 8.4.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7291 of 2026 (Daood vs. State of U.P.). The applicant claims parity. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 12 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 6.1.2026. 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) : Haya Rizvi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sonu @ Kalim @ Ena .....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 there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The co-accused Daood has been granted bail by this Court. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for more than three 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, Sonu @ Kalim @ Ena 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. 11843 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad