HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33373 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anupam Anand, learned Brief Holder for the State-opposite party. 2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 163 of 2023, under Sections 323, 308, 304, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Didarganj, District Azamgarh during the pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. A vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. Identically placed co-accused Rohit and Sarmeet have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 23.08.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 37130 of 2023, Rohit and another v. State of U.P., whereas Man Singh and Santosh have been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 05.02.2024 passed in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 16691 of 2023, Man Singh and another v. State of U.P.. The applicant claims parity. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Pargraph-2 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 24.07.2025 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned Brief Holder for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kiran Yadav, Sanjay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Deepak .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that a vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant; identically placed co-accused Rohit and Sarmeet have been granted bail by this Court, whereas Man Singh and Santosh have been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than two months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, without commenting 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- Deepak, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that he: (i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; (ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and, (iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses. 7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. October 10, 2025 SKT/- BAIL No. 33373 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad