HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14569 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nagendra Kumar Mishra, learned brief holder for the State-respondent. 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. 20 of 2026, under Sections 331(4), 324(5), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 318(4), 61(2) BNS, Police Station Panki, District Western (Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar) during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The alleged sale-deeds were executed on 08.08.2024 and 09.09.2024. The first information report was lodged on 12.01.2026. The inordinate delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. The applicant is neither seller, nor purchaser nor the marginal witness of the alleged sale deeds. No amount was credited in the bank account of the applicant. The applicant is not the beneficiary of any illicit transaction. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 16 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 18.03.2026 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned brief holder for the State 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) : Prakash Narayan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sushil Kumar Shukla .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The first information report was lodged belatedly. The applicant is neither seller, nor purchaser nor the marginal witness of the alleged sale deeds. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than one month 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 Sushil Kumar Shukla, 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 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 Lbm/- BAIL No. 14569 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad