HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3576 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anupam Anand, 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. 292 of 2025, under Sections 309(4), 317(2) B.N.S., Police Station Prem Nagar, District Bareilly during the pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The applicant was arrested on 07.08.2025 along with co-accused Islam Kadir and has been falsely implicated in the present case. False recovery of Indian currency of Rs.24,000/-, a chain, a country made pistol and two live cartridges has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The recovered chain cannot be connected with the present offence. No test identification parade was got conducted by the police authorities. It is next contended that the applicant has not been identified on the basis of any CCTV footage. Further, no CCTV footage was collected by the Investigating Officer. Identically placed co-accused Islam Kadir has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 02.02.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2187 of 2026, Islam Kadir v. State of U.P. The applicant claims parity. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph-22 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and Paragraphs-3 and 4 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 07.08.2025 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dewendra Singh, Mayank Kumar Ranjan, Rajesh Prasad, Vimal Kumar Pal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Salman .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 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 the applicant was not named in the first information report. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. No test identification parade was got conducted by the police authorities. No CCTV footage was collected by the Investigating Officer. Identically placed co-accused Islam Kadir has been granted bail by this Court. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for almost nine 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- Salman, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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. May 5, 2026 SKT/- BAIL No. 3576 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad