HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32945 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Lalit Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, 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.277 of 2026, under Sections 61(2), 111(3), 248, 308(5), 308(6), 352, 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station- Bhamora, District- Bareilly, during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Vague and general allegations have been levelled against the applicant. There is no specific allegation of extortion against the applicant. Earlier, the co-accused Mamta had lodged an F.I.R. against the informant and four others, registered as Case Crime No.0198 of 2026, under Sections 74, 76, 191(2), 115(2), 118(1), 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, at Police Station Bhamora, District Bareilly, indicating prior enmity between the parties. Further, the cheque of Rs.2 lakhs was allegedly recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement of co-accused Surkesh. The applicant is neither a member of any organized crime syndicate nor he acted on behalf of such syndicate. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Further, the co-accused Shilpi @ Shivani has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 25.8.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.30107 of 2026. Applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 20.07.2026 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Barmeshwar Nath Tiwari, Parijat Kumar Tiwari, Venu Gopal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Lalit Kumar Tripathi, G.A. Bhure .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA have 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 Court prima facie finds that vague and general allegations have been levelled against the applicant. There is no specific allegation of extortion against the applicant. Earlier, the co-accused Mamta had lodged a first information report against the informant and four others, indicating prior enmity between the parties. The cheque of Rs.2 lakhs was allegedly recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement of co-accused Surkesh. Further, the co-accused Shilpi @ Shivani has been enlarged on bail by this Court. Moreover, the applicant has no criminal history and has remained confined for more than two 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 the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant Bhure, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on her 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. September 24, 2026 Manish Kr BAIL No. 32945 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad