Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:14211 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38118 of 2024 Applicant :- Vinod Alias Yogenda Chandra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 236 of 2024, U/S 105, 115(2), 351(2), 352 B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Shivli, District Kanpur Dehat, during the pendency of trial. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person, Ramsewak @ Nanhu, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 23-11-2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 39307 of 2024. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14-8-2024 having criminal history of 2 cases, which stands explained, as the said cases are triable by Magistrate and the maximum punishment in them is below 7 years. The applicant has been enlarged on bail on his furnishing his personal bond in light of Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. He further submitted that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of the co-accused, who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. 5. The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned State Law Officer. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of parity to the co-accused and have not been disputed by him. 6. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 7. In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021, coupled with the judgment of Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 825 without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity. 9. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Vinod Alias Yogenda Chandra, who is involved in aforementioned case crime number 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 11. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 31.1.2025 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad