HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8887 of 2026 Court No. - 70 HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J. Second supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 605 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) BNS, Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri, during the pendency of the trial. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the subject case. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R and his name has surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused. No recovery has been taken from the possession of the applicant. There is no public or independent witness against the applicant. Learned counsel submits that applicant has not committed the alleged crime. At this stage, there is no credible evidence to link the applicant with the offence. As per report submitted by the Incharge CJM, Mainpuri, charge sheet has been submitted on 8.4.2026, but till date, no charge has been framed against the applicant. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 22 of the the bail application. Applicant is in jail since 09.11.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse liberty of bail and is ready to co-operate in the trial. Learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anurag Shrivastava, Gaurav Singh, Kamlendra Tripathi, Pawan Kumar, Rakesh Kumar Yadav, Rishabh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Chandan Kumar Mishra .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) that there is no illegality in the bail rejection order. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this Court prima facie finds that a vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant was not named in the FIR and his name was disclosed in the confessional statement of the co-accused. Charge sheet has already been submitted. At this stage there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Further, the applicant has remained confined for about ten 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 delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Bail Application is allowed. Let the applicant-Chandan Kumar Mishra, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on 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; (iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. It is further directed that the trial court shall conclude the trial of the case, strictly in view of the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C., as expeditiously as possible, from the date of production of this order, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, if there is no legal impediment. September 8, 2026 Brijesh BAIL No. 8887 of 2026 2 (Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.) Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad