Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:70767 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14855 of 2025 Applicant :- Rashid Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Dhar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Dharmendra Dhar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.377 of 2024, under Section 64(2)(J) B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Kithore, District Meerut, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 3.4.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1536 of 2025 and later on, the final report (charge-sheet) has been submitted in the added Section of 64(2)(J) B.N.S. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant has not misused the said opportunity granted earlier on and has cooperated during trial and is ready to do so in future also. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 03.11.2024. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 6. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out. 7. In the judgments of Supreme Court passed in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in 2016 (1) SCC (Cri) 240 and Manoj Suresh Jadhav & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra, reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3428, the applicant therein was enlarged on anticipatory bail in the added sections U/S 438 Cr.P.C. after being enlarged on regular bail U/S 439 Cr.P.C. Although, the instant case is of regular bail but it can be considered to be on better footing. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, taking into consideration the aforementioned judgments of the Supreme Court and 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. 9. Let the applicant- Rashid, 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./351 B.N.S.S. 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. 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. Order Date :- 5.5.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad