HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31534 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record. 2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 553 of 2025, under Sections 303(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 111(2)(b) B.N.S., Police Station Shikohabad, District Firozabad, during the pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The name of the applicant surfaced during course of investigation. The alleged tractors were not recovered from the possession of the applicant. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. It is next contended that the applicant is neither a member of any organized crime syndicate nor he acted on behalf of such syndicate. Further, the co-accused Teetu @ Himanshu and Sameer @ Dabbu have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 26.11.2025 and 3.2.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 40804 of 2025 and 3597 of 2026 respectively. The applicant claims parity. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph-22 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 12.8.2026 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dwijendra Prasad, Pramod Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ramu Yadav .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Home Gov. Of U.P. At Lucknow .....Opposite Party(s) satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The name of the applicant surfaced during course of investigation. The alleged tractors were not recovered from the possession of the applicant. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The co-accused Teetu @ Himanshu and Sameer @ Dabbu have been granted bail by this Court. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than a month and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and 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, therefore, 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- Ramu Yadav, 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 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. 31534 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad