Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44882 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6901 of 2025 Applicant :- Sarvan @ Tauwa Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Verma,Hari Krishna Verma,Sudhanshu Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Sri Atul Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Rafiya Faruqui, learned AGA for the State and Sri Narendra Yadav, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant. Said Vakalatnama is taken on record. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit, the same is taken on record. 3. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 24.02.2025 in FIR/Case Crime No.53 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 191(2), 191(3) & 190 of B.N.S., Police Station – Kakori, District – Lucknow. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR, wherein the allegation of assault, beating and firing has been attributed to four accused persons including the present applicant but during the course of investigation, culpability of the three more persons, namely, Anshu Yadav @ Kali, Ranjeet Kumar and Neeraj Yadav @ Pujari has been surfaced attributing them the role of companion/friends of main accused person. Since those persons were not named in the FIR and nothing incriminating was recovered from them, therefore, this Court granted bail to the aforesaid accused persons, namely, Anshu Yadav alias Kali, Ranjeet Kumar, Neeraj Yadav alias Pujari vide orders dated 07.05.2025, 19.05.2025 & 30.05.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.3924/2025, 4268/2025 & 4920/2025. While granting bail to the co-accused Neeraj Yadav alias Pujari, this Court considered in para-7 that such accused person is having criminal history of 12 cases. Criminal history of the present applicant of three cases has been explained in para-2 of the supplementary affidavit. 5. Sri Verma has drawn attention of this Court towards the statement of the complainant/informant wherein the specific role of firing has been attributed to the co-accused/main accused Golu Yadav @ Himanshu. Further attention has been drawn towards the statement of eye witness, namely, Abrar, the shop owner where the alleged incident took place, wherein he has not levelled any specific allegation against any one about firing but has stated that out of those co-accused persons, any one accused person had fired upon the deceased. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the pointing out of the present applicant, rather the weapon/country made pistol was recovered on the pointing out of main accused Golu Yadav alias Himanshu. 6. Sri Verma has further submitted that co-accused Akhilesh Yadav has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 15.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6331 of 2025 and case of the present applicant is on exact parity with the case of co-accused Akhilesh Yadav, therefore, on the basis of principles of parity, the present applicant may also be enlarged on bail. He has further submitted that the applicant undertakes that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order. 7. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application but they could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant as well as the point of parity. 8. Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; perusing the material available on record; the fact that as per statement of the complainant/informant, specific role of firing has been attributed to the co-accused/main accused Golu Yadav alias Himanshu; nothing incriminating has been recovered from the pointing out of the present applicant, rather the weapon/country-made pistol was recovered on the pointing out of main accused Golu Yadav alias Himanshu; criminal history of three cases of the present applicant has been explained in para-2 of the supplementary affidavit; the aforesaid co-accused persons having similar role have been granted bail; undisputed fact that case of the present applicant is on exact parity with the case of co-accused Akhilesh Yadav and undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 10. Let applicant- Sarvan alias Tauwa be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. 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. (v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Order Date :- 1.8.2025 RBS/- Digitally signed by :- RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench