Mandatory compliance with procedural safeguards, such as videography during search and seizure, is essential for ensuring a fair trial and preventing unlawful recoveries.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

1. Heard Sri Asheesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.185 of 2024, under Sections- 305(2), 317(2) BNS, Police Station-Mansoorpur, District-Muzaffar Nagar, during the pendency of the trial.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant was not named in the FIR. Subsequently, on the basis of information, the applicant along with four other co-accused persons were arrested and from their joint possession, 40 motor cycles were also shown to be recovered, though, there was no private witness or videography of the aforesaid recovery. Though, the videography of recovery is compulsory as per Section 105 BNSS. This creates doubt over the entire prosecution story. It is further submitted that co-accused Shoeb and Owais, have already been released on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 30403 of 2025 and 22485 of 2025 vide orders dated 04.09.2025 and 22.07.2025, as applicant is also on similar footing. Therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. It is further submitted that the applicant has explained the criminal history of six cases which were planted against the applicant subsequent to the recovery of the present case. It is further submitted that charge sheet has been filed in the present case, therefore, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation. The applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 16.04.2025. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused as well as considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation in SLP No.16953 of 2025 decided on 11.12.2025 and without expressing any opinion 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- Shadab, involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

i. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

ii. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

iii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

iv. The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed by him.

7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

8. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

9. It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the