JUDGMENT

Ajit Singh, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

2. This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant in connection with Case Crime No.253 of 2022, under Sections 419 , 420, 467, 468, 471, 274, 275, 34 IPC. and section 18 (a) (i), 18 (c) and 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, Police Station Kotwali, district Prayagraj.

3. The first information report of this incident was lodged by the complainant against the present accused and others and it was mentioned in the FIR that on 21.10.2022 the first informant along with other police personnel were present at Swarooprani Medical College then the police informer has informed that some persons were doing work of selling and buying fake platelets and thereafter they raided and arrested ten accused persons, in which two persons had fled away. It is further mentioned that from the possession of the applicant, six pouch plasma, three pouch platelets, one Samsung phone and one phone of Realme of black colour were recovered.

4. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with the ulterior motive. He has further submitted that the co-accused Dilip Shukla, who was also nominated in the present case and from whose possession alleged recovery was also shown, has been granted bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.1.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.85 of 2023, copy of the same has been produced which is taken on record. He has further submitted that the case of the applicant is similar to that of co-accused who has been granted bail and has claimed parity. He has further submitted that no offence under section 274 and 275 IPC was committed by the present applicant or other co-accused as the alleged recovery of Plasma was not in the category of drug. He has further submitted that the offence is triable by Court of Magistrate. He submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.10.2022, hence he is entitled to be released on bail and he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage, therefore he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, submission of learned counsel for the parties, considering the law laid down in the case of Data Ram v. State of U.P. and others , 2018 (3) SCC 2 , and considering the fact that the case of the applicant is similar to that of co-accused who has been granted bail, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

8. Let the applicant Raghvendra Singh Alias Rahul involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses;

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission;

v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make