HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1374 of 2018 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. Case called out. None appears on behalf of revisionist to press the revision. However, learned A.G.A. is present. It appears from the record that the revisionist has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 27.05.2020 passed in the instant revision. The order dated 27.05.2020 is extracted herein-under :- "[C.M.A. No.140599 of 2018] In view of COVID-2019 pandemic, the matter is being heard in Chamber through Video Conferencing. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the respondent State. Vide order dated 21.5.2020, it was made clear that no further adjournment would be granted to opposite party no.2 on the next date. In spite of that, none has appeared on behalf of respondent no.2, hence this Court proceed to decide the application, after hearing learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.. This is an application for bail in pending criminal revision. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Brijesh Yadav Vijay, Rahul Mishra, Rakesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Govt. Advocate, Alok Kirti Mishra, Manish Kumar Pandey Vipin Yadav Juvenile Thru.Father Bharat Yadav .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And Anr. .....Opposite Party(s) Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel next submits that co-accused namely Rohit Yadav has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 21.12.2018 passed in Case:- BAIL No.- 8316 of 2018 [Rohit Yadav Vs. State of U.P.] and the case of the applicant stands on identical footing, hence the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is in jail since 17.8.2017. He has no previous criminal history. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and going through the record, without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail. The application for bail is allowed. Let applicant, Vipin Yadav, be released on bail in case crime No.65 of 2018 under Sections 376-D, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act, Police Station Lambhua, District Sultanpur. The applicant, concerned Court/Authority/ Official shall follow the following conditions imposed in the interest of justice due to COVID-19 situation:- (i) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. (ii) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self- attested by the counsel for the party concerned. (iii) The concerned Court/ Authority/ Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. CRLR No. 1374 of 2018 2 (iv) The applicant shall furnish a personal bond to the satisfaction of the Jail Authorities where said accused- applicant is imprisoned provided the accused-applicant shall also furnish two reliable sureties required by the court concerned, within a period of six weeks from the date of his actual release. In case of failure to provide sureties within the aforesaid period, this order shall automatically stand vacated and Court concerned shall take proceedings required under law." In view of the aforesaid, the revision is consigned to records. August 29, 2025 Mohit Singh/- CRLR No. 1374 of 2018 3 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench