JUDGMENT : Ajay Bhanot, J. 1. Matter is taken up in the revised call. 2. By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.55 of 2024 at Police Station Sikrara, District-Jaunpur under Sections 302/34, 120B I.P.C. The applicant is in jail since 04.09.2024. 3. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 27.09.2024. 4. The following arguments made by Shri Ajit Kumar Pathak, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Chandan Agrawal, learned AGA-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail: 1. The applicant was not named in the FIR. 2. The son of the deceased too did not nominate the applicant in his statement made before the police authorities. 3. The only incriminatory evidence against the applicant is the statement of the co-accused-Vijay Yadav made before the police authorities while in the custody of the latter. The said statement insofar as it implicates the applicant is not admissible in evidence. 4. There is no direct evidence against the applicant. 5. One countrymade pistol and Rs. 700/- were planted on the applicant only to burnish the credentials of the police investigators. The said money belongs to the applicant. There is no independent witness to the recovery. 6. Recovered items cannot be connected with the crime. 7. No forensic science laboratory report which confirms the presence of human bloodstains on the said article has been produced by the prosecution. 8. The co-accused-Vijay Yadav has been granted bail by this Court on 16.07.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.22536 of 2024. The applicant seeks parity in relief granted to the said co-accused. 9. The applicant has explained his criminal history. It is also contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in a number of false cases to burnish their professional credentials. The said cases do not have any bearing on the instant bail application. 10. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial proceedings. 5. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending. 6. In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. 7. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial proceedings. 5. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending. 6. In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. 7. Let the applicant-Vishal Mishra be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial. (ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. 8. The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement rendered by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Department ( Application U/S 482 No. 2613 of 2023 ) 9. The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant.