Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113723 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13968 of 2025 Applicant :- Rajaram Chaudhari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Chaubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Brijesh Pratap Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The instant second bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.29 of 2024, under Sections 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act and Sections 467, 468, 465, 419, 420 I.P.C., Police Station Naini, District Prayagraj, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 21.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7454 of 2024 after considering the fact that from the two vehicles total 80 kg. Ganja was recovered and in one of the vehicle applicant was sitting and therefore, recovered contraband involves commercial quantity but he is pressing the instant second bail application on the ground that after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant, co-accused Vimlesh and Sandeep Kumar, who were also sitting alongwith applicant in the same vehicle, have been released on bail by two different Co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 22.04.2025 and 07.04.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.8775 of 2024 and 8420 of 2024, respectively and on facts, case of applicant is exactly at par with them and therefore, applicant should also be enlarged on bail. 4. He further submits that applicant is having no other criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 14.01.2024 i.e. for last more than one and half years. 5. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 21.11.2024 after considering the fact that from the possession of the applicant and others huge commercial quantity of ganja was recovered but could not dispute the fact that after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant, co- accused Vimlesh and Sandeep Kumar have been released on bail by two different Co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 22.04.2025 and 07.04.2025 and on facts, case of applicant is at par with them. 6. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is having no other criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 14.01.2024 i.e. for last more than one and half years. 7. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case. 8. However, this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 21.11.2024 after considering the fact that from the possession of the applicant and others huge commercial quantity of ganja was recovered but it reflects, after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant, co-accused Vimlesh and Sandeep Kumar have been released on bail by two different Co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 22.04.2025 and 07.04.2025 and on facts, case of applicant is at par with them. 9. The Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI & another (2022) 10 SCC 51 in paragraph no. 98 has observed that- "Uniformity and certainty in the decisions of the court are the foundations of judicial dispensation. Persons accused with same offence shall never be treated differently either by the same court or by the same or different courts. Such an action though by an exercise of discretion despite being a judicial one would be a grave affront to Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India." 10. Therefore, considering the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra), it appears that all the accused persons should be treated equally and while disposing the bail application Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India should be considered and on the ground of parity itself applicant can be enlarged on bail. 11. Further, applicant is having no other criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 14.01.2024 i.e. for last more than one and half years. 12. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 13. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 14. Let the applicant- Rajaram Chaudhari, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 15. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant. 16. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Zafar Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad