HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31083 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 118 of 2025, under Sections 111(3) B.N.S., Police Station- Shahabganj, District- Chandauli during pendency of the trial. 3. 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 after five months of the alleged incident. The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. No recovery of any incriminating article was made from 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, identically placed co-accused Govind Kumar Gupta has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 2.7.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.22069 of 2026. Applicant claims parity. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para no.12 of the bail application and para no.4 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 20.7.2026 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Himanshu Giri, Vaibhav Goswami Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Shravan Kumar Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The name of the applicant surfaced after five months of the alleged incident. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Further identically placed co-accused Govind Kumar Gupta has been enlarged on bail by this Court. Moreover, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and presently 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 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, Shravan Kumar Yadav, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that: i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness; iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court. 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. 31083 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad