HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14620 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Niraj Kumar Tiwari, learned AGA for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record. 2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 345 of 2025, under Sections 110, 123, 305, 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) r/w 61(2) B.N.S., Police Station- Bilhaur, District- Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 27.8.2025 and 30.8.2025, whereas the first information report was lodged on 01.9.2025. The delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. Vague and general allegations have been levelled against the applicant. False recovery of Rs.4000/-, a mobile phone and an Aadhar card has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The recovered articles do not connect the applicant with the offence. It is next contended that identically placed co-accused Soni alias Nisha and Mahendra Nath have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 27.11.2025 an 26.02.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.41976 of 2025 an 7318 of 2026 respectively. Applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 10.9.2025 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rakesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Chhotelal Alias Dinesh .....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 the first information report has been lodged belatedly. Vague and general allegations have been levelled against the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. I dentically placed co-accused Soni alias Nisha and Mahendra Nath have been granted bail by this Court. Moreover, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained confined for almost eight months and after submission of the 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 Chhotelal Alias Dinesh, 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 7, 2026 Manish Kr BAIL No. 14620 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad