Surendra Singh, J.;— Counter affidavit filed by the learned A.G.A.is taken on record. Applicant-Chhotey Babu @ Sunil Singh seeks bail in Case Crime No.353 of 2012, under Sections 392 and 411 I.P.C., Police Station Auras, District Unnao. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. 2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the incident is said to have taken place on 14.5.2012 and the F.I.R. was lodged at belated stage on 15.8.2012 i.e. after three months from the date of the incident and there is no proper explanation for this inordinate delay. It is next argued that the applicant was named in the F.I.R. and allegedly he was known to the informant but it was got registered at highly belated stage. It is alleged that as per the allegations contained in the F.I.R. 11+3 pairs of silver payals and two pairs of golden earring and two bichhiyas were looted. The applicant is said to have been arrested on 17.8.2012 and from his possession 12 pairs of Todiya and 3 +4 pairs of bichhiyas have been recovered. It is argued that the looted property shown in the F.I.R. admittedly has not been recovered from the possession of the applicant. Otherwise also, the recovery is wholly false and concocted and it is highly improbable that the applicant would be wandering hither and thither with the looted booty, even after three months. The applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is next argued that the applicant is in jail since 17.8.2012, having no criminal history to his credit and the trial has not commenced which is likely to take some time to conclude, thus he deserves to be released on bail at this stage. 3. The bail is, however, opposed by the learned A.G.A. by submitting that the applicant has got criminal history of four cases to his credit and admittedly in one case he has been acquitted and in the three other cases he has been granted bail by the courts concerned. It is further argued that in case he is allowed to be released on bail, there is every likelihood of his fleeing away from the judicial process and tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is further argued that in case he is allowed to be released on bail, there is every likelihood of his fleeing away from the judicial process and tampering with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, he does not deserve to be released on bail at this stage. 4. The points pertaining to nature of accusation, severity of punishment, reasonable apprehension of tampering the witnesses, prima facie, satisfaction regarding proposed evidence and genuineness of the prosecution case were duly considered. 5. Considering the nature of the argument advanced and the allegations contained in the F.I.R., the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant-Chhotey Babu @ Sunil Singh involved in aforesaid 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:- 1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. 2. He will not pressurise/intimidate the prosecution witness. 3. He will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail. _____________