HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10662 of 2025 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. According to the recovery memo, the incident is alleged to have taken place on 10.12.2024, when the police team, on the basis of information supplied, is said to have raided the premises in question with recovery of 600 grams of Morphine along with cash. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant and no recovery has been made from him. He further submits that the co-accused Shubham Pathak, from whose house the recovery was made, has already been granted bail by the co-ordinate bench of this court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 870 of 2025 vide order dated 23.04.2025. As per the prosecution case, the only role assigned to the applicant is that the applicant was present at the place of incident along with co-accused persons. The applicant has criminal history of 11 cases which has been explained in paragraph-2 of the supplementary affidavit. 4. He further submits that the co-accused persons namely Jeet Bahadur, Dharmraj, Ashish, Satyam Pathak,Durgesh Rawat have been granted bail by a co-ordinate bench of this court in Criminal Misc Bail Application Nos. 1285 of 2025, 4432 of 2025, 686 of 2025, 1280 of 2025 and 4970 of 2025 vide orders dated 11.02.2025, 21.05.2025, 23.01.2025, 27.03.2025 and 03.06.2025 respectively. He seeks parity with the bail orders of the said co-accused. 5. He further submits that the co-accused Shubham Pathak, from whose house the recovery was made, also had criminal history of several cases including those of N.D.P.S Act. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vinod Sonkar .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) 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 and has submitted that the applicant has criminal history of 18 cases, to which learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he has explained criminal history of the applicant in paragraph-2 of the supplementary affidavit, 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 fact that the co-accused Shubham Pathak, from the whose house the recovery was made, has been granted bail, the fact that other co-accused persons namely Jeet Bahadur, Dharmraj, Ashish, Satyam Pathak,Durgesh Rawat have also been granted bail by the co-ordinate bench of this court; the fact that no recovery has been made from the possession of the applicant; the fact that criminal history of 11 cases against the applicant has been explained in paragraph- 2 of the supplementary affidavit; the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.12.2024, he seeks parity with the bail orders of co-accused persons 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 Vinod Sonkar, involved in Case Crime No. 671 of 2024, under sections 8/21(c)/29 of N.D.P.S Act, P.S. Ram Sanehi Ghat, District Barabanki, 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 BAIL No. 10662 of 2025 2 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A I.P.C. (now 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 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 10, 2025 DiVYa BAIL No. 10662 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench