HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26253 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mayank Mohan Dutt Mishra, learned counsel for the informant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.495 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 103 B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Khorabar, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person Ankit Yadav has already been enlarged on bail by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.06.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.2725 of 2025. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 20.05.2025. He further submitted that 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. 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. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Subhash Chandra Pandey, Subir Lal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mayank Mohan Dutt Mishra Roshan Bharti Alias Arjun Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial 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 judgement passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 coupled with the judgment of Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, 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. 7. Let the applicant- Roshan Bharti Alias Arjun Kumar, 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. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 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. 8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 9. 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 10, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 26253 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad