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. 27 of 2024 at Police Station Deoband, District Saharanpur under Sections 302, 201/34, 120-B I.P.C. The applicant is in jail since 21.07.2024. 3. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 22.08.2024. 4. The following arguments made by Ms. Ifra Fatima, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Chandan Agarwal, learned AGA-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail: 1. The deceased left his home on 11.01.2024. He did not return home thereafter. 2. A missing report was got registered on 13.01.2024. The applicant was not referenced in the missing report. 3. The FIR was lodged on 20.01.2024. 4. Delay in lodgement of the FIR in the facts of this case is fatal to the prosecution case. 5. The deceased was last seen drinking liquor with the principal offender and accompanying him on a two wheeler thereafter. 6. Even if the prosecution case is taken on its face value, at best the applicant can be an accused of destruction of evidence. 7. The role of the applicant is distinguishable from the principal offender Usman. 8. An eye witness of event of last seen Mohd. Shahjad was set up only to save the failing prosecution case. The said witness is unreliable for various reasons. There was no cause for the failure of the said witness to promptly inform the police authorities about the event of last seen. 9. The Scooty of the deceased was planted on the applicant by the police authorities to frame him in the instant case to burnish their credentials. There is no independent witness to the recovery. 10. The applicant claims congruency in role and seeks parity in relief granted to the co-accused Mahtab who has been enlarged on bail by this Court by order dated 12.12.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30617 of 2024. 11. The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case. 12. 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. Bail Application No. 30617 of 2024. 11. The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case. 12. 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. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending. 5. In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. 6. Let the applicant- Narendra Saini 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. 7. The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023) 8. 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.