Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:24464 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3293 of 2025 Applicant :- Raju Bind Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Balbir Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Shri Balbir Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amarnath Pandey, learned counsel for the informant as well as Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.130 of 2024, under Sections 103(1) B.N.S., Police Station- Maharajganj, District- Jaunpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person, Male Dharikar has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 19.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 39794 of 2024. The applicant is languishing in jail since 3.8.2024, having no criminal history. He further submitted that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of 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 A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant on the ground that sharp edged weapon (Gandasha) has been recovered at the pointing out of the applicant. However, the aforesaid factual aspects of parity to the co-accused and of no criminal history of the applicant, have not been disputed by them. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and also taking into consideration the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 and the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Cri.L.J. 938 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, and 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 on the ground of parity. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity. 7. Let the applicant- Raju Bind involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (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. 8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. 9. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. 10. 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 on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 19.2.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad