HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25470 of 2026 Court No. - 69 HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J. 1. Learned AGA has filed counter affidavit, the same is taken on record. 1A. Sri Noor Ahmad, learned counsel holding brief appeared for the accused applicant and hands up the rejoinder affidavit, the same is taken on record. 1B. Heard Sri Javed Raza, learned counsel for accused applicant, Sri Noor Ahmad, holding brief for accused/applicant and learned A.G.A. for State. 2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant/ accused- Yogesh to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 278 of 2026, under Sections 137(2), 143(4), 61(2) BNS, P.S.- Aonla, District- Bareilly, during the pendency of trial. 3. It is the contention of learned counsel for accused/applicant that the accused applicant has been implicated during investigation in the FIR dated 24.05.2026 lodged by one Raman with the allegation that on 24.05.2026 at about 10:30 a.m. his son was playing along with two other children. After some time, the two children returned but his son aged about 1-1/2 years did not return. He has lodged the FIR on 24.05.2026 at about 15:34 hours for the said kidnapping. During investigation, the police party on the basis of report of police informer has apprehended the two accused persons, namely, Yogesh (the present applicant) and Pawan in police encounter case and recovered the kidnapped child on 26.05.2026. It is the contention of learned counsel that the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Javed Raza, Rajeev Nayan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Yogesh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) accused/applicant has been taken away from his house on 26.05.2026, which has been reported by his brother Sumit Kumar on Dial 112 with the averment that some persons had taken away his brother-Yogesh from the house. It is the contention of learned counsel that a report is annexed at page no. 23 of the rejoinder affidavit. He further drawn the attention of the Court towards the copy of Regular Suit, wherein one Anil Kumar has instituted a suit against seven persons including the accused/applicant. He submits that Anil Kumar, who is step brother of the accused/applicant and posted in the office of SSP, Bareilly, who is also a police personnel and he used to falsely implicate the accused/applicant in the criminal cases just to put pressure and to usurp the property. It is the contention of learned counsel that it is under his influence that the accused/applicant has been taken away from his house on 26.05.2026 and shown him with the kidnapped child in the intervening night of 26/27.05.2026. He further submits that during investigation the CCTV footage of the place of incident, from where the child was kidnapped was taken into consideration by the Investigating Officer, but nothing incriminating has been found from the CCTV footage. He further submits that he is not conversant about the co-accused Pawan, who was shown arrested along with accused/applicant in the memo of arrest. He further submits that the statement of Uttam Bajpai, who was stated to be instrumental in trafficking of children has named the accused/applicant at the instance of police person as the accused/applicant is also not conversant with Uttam Bajpai. He submits that the charge sheet is submitted. He has criminal history of three cases in two cases he is on bail and one case ended into compromise. Further submits that the co-accused Sanjay Kumar Biswas @ Sanjay Kumar and Sita have been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court. The accused applicant is languishing in jail since 27.05.2026. He seeks enlargement of accused on bail. 4. Learned A.G.A. for State has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that there is clinching evidence against the accused/applicant from whom the police has recovered the kidnapped child and the police persons has also suffered injuries. Hence seeks that the bail application be rejected. 4A. Countering the argument, learned counsel for the accused/applicant submits that the injury caused to the police personnel is inconsistent to the BAIL No. 25470 of 2026 2 ocular evidence as the injury is not stated to be of gun shot. Further submits that the memo of arrest and recovery has been carried out in absence of independent witnesses. It is not controverted that the brother of accused/applicant has called on Dial 112 to intimate that some persons had taken away his brother. 5. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Considering the complicity of accused/applicant and there is apparently marked infirmity in the material collected against the accused/applicant during the investigation and non disclosure of the report lodged by the brother of accused on Dial 112, which was abruptly called by the police with the thumb impression of some Smt. Long Devi as is shown in the rejoinder affidavit, the accused/applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 7. Hence, without touching merit of the case, the bail application is allowed. 8. The accused/applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned in view of observation made by the Supreme Court in its dictums of Girish Gandhi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2024) 10 SCC 674] and Policy Strategy for grant of bail in re [(2024)10SCC 685]. 9. The accused-applicant shall cooperate in judicial process for fair and speedy disposal. September 8, 2026 Abhishek Sri. BAIL No. 25470 of 2026 3 (Avnish Saxena,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad