HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12248 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, 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.422 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 3(5) B.N.S. and Sections 66C, 66D I.T. Act, Police Station - Civil Lines, District - Rampur, during the pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant contends 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 was disclosed by co-accused, who were arrested at the spot. The said statements, insofar as they implicate the applicant, are unreliable. False recovery of a mobile phone and a laptop has been shown from the possession of the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The recovered mobile phone and laptop do not connect the applicant with any offence. The applicant is not a beneficiary of any illicit transaction. No amount has been credited in the bank account of the applicant. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Further, identically placed co-accused Kallan and Danish, who were arrested at the spot, have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 23.03.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.44654 of 2025. Applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 24.12.2025 having no criminal history and if he is enlarged 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) : Fakhruzzaman Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Dilshad .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Having heard learned 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 was disclosed by co- accused, who were arrested at the spot. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Identically placed co-accused Kallan and Danish, who were arrested at the spot, have been granted bail by this Court. Moreover, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained confined for more than three months and after submission of the charge- sheet 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. 6. Let the applicant Dilshad, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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. 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. April 20, 2026 Manish Kr BAIL No. 12248 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad