HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36989 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Pankaj Roy, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rakesh Singh Yadava, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Arun Kumar Misha, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.01 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 109 B.N.S., Police Station Narhi, District Ballia, during the pendency of trial. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person Priyanshu Rai has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 08.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.30141 of 2025, as such, 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. There is no previous criminal history of the applicant except a case foisted on him subsequent to the instant case. He is languishing in jail since 12.01.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 5. The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by them. 6. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pankaj Roy Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rakesh Singh Yadava Vittu Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) (2020) 11 SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case 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 judgements passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 and in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity. 8. Let the applicant- Vittu Yadav, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his 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 applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 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 applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. October 28, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 36989 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad