Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73774 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15248 of 2025 Applicant :- Aniruddh Urf Anurodh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar,Keshav Hari Dixit,Purushottam Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Purushottam Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 02 of 2025, U/S 103(1), 238, 61(2) B.N.S., Police Station Badhpura, District Etawah, during the pendency of trial. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused persons, Rohit and Rahul have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 2.4.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 10632 of 2025 and 10643 of 2025, respectively. The applicant is languishing in jail since 8.4.2025, having no criminal history. He further submitted that the case of the applicant is at a better footing than that of the co- accused persons, who were named in the FIR and who have already been enlarged on bail, therefore, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. The only evidence to have come up against the applicant is that in his absence, a motorcycle stated to have been used in the said crime, was recovered from the house of the applicant. The said recovery is a sham and it cannot be taken into reliance, whatsoever. 5. The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of parity to the co- accused and have 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. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Aniruddh Urf Anurodh, who is involved in aforementioned case crime number 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. 8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 9. 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 :- 7.5.2025 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad