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 11.03.2024. 3. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 13.09.2024. 4. The following arguments made by Ms. Swati Agrawal Srivastava, learned counsel assisted by Shri Amit Kumar, 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 applicant was nominated in the statement of co- accused Vidyasagar made before the police authorities while in the custody of the latter. The said statement insofar as it implicates the applicant is inadmissible in evidence. 3. There is no direct evidence against the applicant. 4. No incriminating article has been recovered from the applicant. 5. The chain of incriminating circumstances against the applicant is not complete. 6. The said co-accused Vidyasagar has already been enlarged on bail by this Court by order dated 16.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 44085 of 2024. The case of the applicant stands at a better footing however he seeks parity for grant of bail. 7. The applicant has explained his criminal history. It is also contended that the applicant has become a soft target and a convenient scapegoat for the police authorities who nominated him in a number of false cases to burnish their professional credentials. The said cases do not have any bearing on the instant bail application. 8. 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- Sachin Yadav @ Deva 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. 6. Let the applicant- Sachin Yadav @ Deva 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.