HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11101 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.1362 of 2010 under Section 409, 420, 120B IPC and Sections 13(1)(II) r/w 13(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali Mahoba, District Mahoba. In the prosecution case it is alleged that in district Mahoba, in the financial year 2004-05 and 2005-06, distribution was made by U.P. State Food & Essential Commodities Corporation as well as by U.P. State Food and Marketing Department. The said goods are alleged to have been transported from Central Godown to State Level Godown by showing that the food-grains were supplied by trucks, however, upon enquiry, it was found that instead of trucks, these were supplied by tractors, scooters etc. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that co-accused Sudeep Kumar Jain has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 03.11.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1210 of 2025, and the applicant, therefore, claims parity. It is further submitted that the case of the applicant stands on a better footing than that of co-accused Sudeep Kumar Jain. The alleged incident pertains to the year 2004–05, whereas the F.I.R. was lodged after an inordinate delay of more than five years. The charge-sheet Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dinesh Chandra Yadav, Kaustubh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A. Rampal Singh .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) has been filed on 03.09.2025. The applicant is now retired from service and has no criminal antecedents. 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. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute that it is a case of parity. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record. On due consideration to the role assigned to the applicant, and the facts that the charge-sheet has been filed, the applicant has no criminal antecedents, the applicant has now retired from government service, and that the co-accused persons named above have already been granted bail vide order dated 12.08.2025, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the ground of parity. Let the applicant Rampal be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions: (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. BAIL No. 11101 of 2025 2 (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 of the IPC (now Section 269 BNS). (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 Section 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 of the IPC (now Section 209 BNS). It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. November 13, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S BAIL No. 11101 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench