HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16507 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard Sri Rohit Shukla, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Utkarsh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri N.K. Sharma, learned AGA for the State-respondent. Perused the record. 2. The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 164 of 2026, under Sections 318(4), 111(2)(B), 61(2) BNS, Section 3/21(2) of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes (BUDS) Act and Section 66D I.T. Act, Police Station Ramgarhtal, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Recovery of three mobile phones has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The recovered mobile phones belong to the applicant. The alleged mobile phones do not connect the applicant with any offence. There is no adverse cyber cell report against the applicant. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. It is next contended that 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 20.03.2026 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned AGA 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gaurav Kumar, Utkarsh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ajit Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Court prima facie finds that there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. There is no adverse cyber cell report against the applicant. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than two months and after submission of charge sheet 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 delay the trial 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 Ajit Yadav, 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 the 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. May 14, 2026 Manish Kr BAIL No. 16507 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad