Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:126176 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8375 of 2025 Applicant :- Irshad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Barmeshwar Nath Tiwari,Mohammad Waseem,Parijat Kumar Tiwari,Venu Gopal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Mohammad Waseem, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.218 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 132, 125(1), 221, 224, 331(5), 324, 109, 3(5), 61(2) B.N.S. and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station- Shahi, District- Bareilly, during the pendency of trial. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused persons, Dilshad, Rashid and Hasnain have already been enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.02.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46752 of 2024. The applicant is languishing in jail since 20.07.2024 having criminal history of one case which stands explained in paragraph No. 9 of the rejoinder affidavit dated 25.07.2025. He further submitted that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused who have 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 State Law Officer, however, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by him. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by 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. 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. Let the applicant- Irshad, 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 during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 10. 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. Order Date :- 29.7.2025 Karan (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad