HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11840 of 2024 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record. 2. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 09.03.2021, in furtherance of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., against three persons including the applicant, stating that the applicant, who is a partner of M/s S.S. Dev Traders, had allured to get persons employed in Modern Rail Coach Factory, Raebareli and for getting awarded certain contracts in the factory and under this allurement, he extracted Rs. 21,04,350/- in the name of providing employment and Rs. 8,34,959/- for procuring contracts. He alleged that fake agreements and fake letters were issued by Dev Traders. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the F.I.R has been lodged in furtherance of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case as he is not a partner in M/s S.S Dev Traders, rather, he is an employee there. He further submits that allegation against the applicant is that Rs. 5,15,00/- were transferred in the account of the applicant on the instructions of co-accused Jitendra Kumar Pandey, which is evident from the statement of the complainant, which is on record (Annexure No. C.A-2). 4. It is further submitted that the applicant has a criminal history of three other cases, description of which is given in paragraph no. 16 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. He further submits that the co-accused persons namely Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Kumar Tiwari and Shrawan Kumar @ Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Umesh Chandra Tripathi, Arun Kumar Singh Yadav, Dharam Pal Yadav, Gaurav Shukla, Shambhunath Mishra, Suyash Shukla, Vatsaly Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Santosh Pandey .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) Shrawan Kumar Tripathi have been granted bail by a co-ordinate bench of this court in Criminal Misc Bail Application No. 9234 of 2025 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8843 of 2025, vide orders dated 24.09.2025 and 16.09.2025 respectively. He seeks parity with the bail orders of the said co- accused. 5. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail, but he could not dispute that it is a case of parity. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case; the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the role assigned to the applicant; the fact that applicant is languishing in jail since 19.08.2024, he seeks parity with the bail orders of co-accused Jitendra Kumar and Shrawan Kumar and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. 8. Let the applicant Santosh Pandey, involved in Case Crime No. 58/2021, under sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, P.S Aliganj, District Lucknow, 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) 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. (v) 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 229-A I.P.C. (now 269 BNS) BAIL No. 11840 of 2024 2 (vi) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now 84 BNSS) 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 174-A I.P.C. (now 209 BNS). 9. The application is allowed on the ground of parity. November 7, 2025 DiVYa BAIL No. 11840 of 2024 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench