Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29563 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10777 of 2024 Appellant :- Mohit Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Kamal Kumar Singh,Sudhir Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,K.K.Rao,Pradeep Kumar Srinette Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 2. The present criminal appeal has been filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 05.10.2024 passed in Bail Application No. 4644 of 2024 (Mohit Yadav vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 242 of 2023 registered under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 342, 384, 452 I.P.C. & 3(2)va of SC/ST (P.A.) Act, 1989 Police Station-Kydganj, District-Prayagraj during the pendency of this appeal. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that similarly placed co-accused person, Anupam Shukla Alias Anupama Tripathi has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 21.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9563 of 2024. The appellant has a history of one criminal case to his credit which fact has been explained in paragraph no. 15 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. The appellant is languishing in jail since 13.10.2023. 4. He further submitted that since the role of the appellant is identical to that of the co-accused, who has already been enlarged on bail, she is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. 5. The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. 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. 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 appellant has made out a case for bail. The appeal is allowed on the ground of parity. 8. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the criminal appeal is allowed and the order dated 05.10.2024 is set aside. Let the appellant Mohit Yadav, who is involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on her 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 appellant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The appellant 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 appellant 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 her in accordance with law. 9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 10. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the appellant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 3.3.2025 SY Digitally signed by :- SWETA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SWETA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad