Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78934 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16303 of 2025 Applicant :- Dilshad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Brijesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.13 of 2025, under Sections 70(2), 115(2), 351(2), (3), 333 B.N.S. and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Naugawan, Sadat, District- J.P. Nagar (Amroha), during the pendency of trial. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the case of the applicant is at better footing to co-accused person Mohd. Shadik who has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 2.5.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14832 of 2025. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the instant case is misuse of dowry laws and the case of unnatural offence has been foisted on the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.1.2025, having no criminal history to his credit. He further submitted that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused, who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. 6. The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant. However, the aforesaid factual aspects of parity to the co-accused and of no criminal history of the applicant, have not been disputed by them. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and also taking into consideration the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 and the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Cri.L.J. 938 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, 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 on the ground of parity. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity. 8. Let the applicant- Dilshad involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (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, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. 10. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. 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 on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad