HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32593 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Sanjay Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Siddh Nath Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Praveen Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0239 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 351(3), 352, 109(1), 115(2), 324(2), 103(1) of BNS, Police Station - Utraon, District - Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person, Dhruv Shankar Yadav, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 13.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30595 of 2025. It is further submitted that since the case of the applicant is at par to the co-accused, who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. 5. Learned counsel has also stated that criminal history assigned to the applicant has been explained in the affidavit. The applicant is languishing in jail since 01.11.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 6. The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A.. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by them. 7. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, evidence on record, pending trial and in the 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 judgement of Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Chandrajeet Yadav, Sanjay Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dhiraj Singh, G.A., Praveen Kumar Shukla Dara Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Investigation and another reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity. 9. Let the applicant- Dara Singh, 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 11. 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 17, 2025 Siddhant BAIL No. 32593 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad