HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9525 of 2024 Court No. - 28 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Rajdeep Singh, learned AGA-I and perused the record. 2. This is the second bail application. First bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4577 of 2023. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.81 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376DA, 323 and 328 IPC and Section 5g/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Sairpur, District Lucknow. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that co-accused Guddu @ Dharmendra Kumar Yadav having similar role, has been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 04.08.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2117 of 2024. He further submits that allegation levelled against the applicant is similar to that of accused Guddu @ Dharmendra Kumar Yadav, therefore, applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecutrix has been examined in court as P.W.-1 and although she had supported the prosecution case, but the coordinate Bench of this Court while granting the bail to co-accused Guddu @ Dharmendra Kumar Yadav has considered the fact that there is delay in trial and the Court has also considered the fact that the medical report does not support the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rakesh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Alok Kumar Dixit Ashik Ali .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) prosecution case. Learned counsel also submits that applicant has been in jail since 10.09.2022 and there is no possibility of trial being concluded in near future. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the prosecutrix was minor i.e. aged about 13 years at the relevant time and she in her examination-in-chief as well as in cross- examination has categorically stated that she was raped by the applicant and other co-accused Guddu @ Dharmendra Kumar Yadav and Chhotu @ Naseem. In her cross-examination, the prosecutrix deposed before the court that she was taken by her Phoofa to a place where the applicant and other co-accused were present and thereafter she was given the cold drink containing the sedative material, as a result of which she became unconscious. Thereafter, all the accused, including the applicant, committed rape upon her. The prosecutrix further deposed before the court that she was confined in a room for about one month and all the accused committed rape on her during this period. Learned AGA has further pointed out that from perusal of the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court granting bail to co-accused, Guddu @ Dharmendra Kumar Yadav, it appears that rejection order passed in the first bail application of the applicant has not been brought to the notice of that Court as there is no mention of the rejection order, therefore, it has no relevance. 6. So far as the question of parity is concerned, it is well settled law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Full Bench of this Court (Sunder Lal Vs. State 1983 Cr. L.J. 736) and Division Benches of this Court that parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail even at the stage of second or third or subsequent bail applications when the bail application of the co-accused whose bail had been earlier rejected, are allowed and co-accused is released on bail. It is also relevant to mention here the observations made by a Division Bench of this in the case of Chander @ Chandra Vs. State of U.P. (1998 U.P. Cr.R. 263) on the question of parity, which read as under:- "a Judge is not bound to grant bail to an accused on the ground of parity even where the order granting bail to an identically placed co-accused contains reasons, if the same has been passed in flagrant violation of well settled principle and ignores to take BAIL No. 9525 of 2024 2 into consideration the relevant facts essential for granting bail." 7. In the present case, the prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief and in the cross-examination, has categorically deposed before the court that she was taken by her Phoofa to a place where the applicant and other co- accused were present and thereafter she was given the cold drink containing the sedative material, as a result of which she became unconscious. Thereafter, all the accused, including the applicant, committ ed rape upon her. The prosecutrix further deposed before the court that she was confined in a room for about one month and all the accused committed rape on her during this period. Therefore, the ground of long incarceration and parity has not come to rescue the applicant for releasing him on bail. Further, there is no relevance of the order, in which there is no mention of the order rejecting the firs bail application of the applicant. 8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties as well as the argument that the prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief has categorically stated before the court that she was confined in a room for about one month and she was raped by the applicant and other co-accused repeatedly during that period and also considering the fact that the prosecutrix was aged about 13 years at the relevant time, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 9. Second bail application is accordingly rejected. 9. Second bail application is accordingly rejected. September 12, 2025 Rao/- BAIL No. 9525 of 2024 3 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench