Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21329 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38824 of 2024 Applicant :- Manish @ Vipin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anshul Sengar,Atul Kumar Shahi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rudra Pratap Singh,Sheshadri Trivedi Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Atul Kumar Shahi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rudra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 287 of 2024, under Sections 302, 34 of I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri, during the pendency of trial. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person, Neeraj Yadav, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 11.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 26961 of 2024. It is further submitted that since the case of the applicant is at par to the co- accused, who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.05.2024. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained except a case of Gangster Act, which has been instituted subsequent to the instant FIR is the only case in which the applicant is yet to apply for bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 5. The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State. However, the aforesaid factual aspects of parity to the co-accused have not been disputed by him. 6. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may 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, evidence on record, pending trial and in the 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 judgement of Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity. 9. Let the applicant- Manish @ Vipin, who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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. 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 :- 13.2.2025 Priya (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- PRIYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- PRIYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad