Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:24848 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 141 of 2025 Applicant :- Yogesh Pratap Dinker And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Garg,Yash Garg Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Yash Garg, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. 3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Sessions Case No.1639 of 2022 registered under Sections 18(a)(i), 16, 18(b), 18-B, 18(a)(vi), 18(c), 18A r/w 16, 17A(f) punishable under Section 27(b)(i), 27(d), 28A, 27(b)(ii) and 28 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 at Police Station- Civil Lines, District Aligarh with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that co- accused person Sandeep Saroha has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 27.1.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.683 of 2025. Therefore, the present applicants are also entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. There is no criminal history of the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants undertake that they will cooperate in the trial failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail. 5. The prayer for anticipatory bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. 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 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 judgements passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 and in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application is allowed on the ground of parity. 7. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicants- Yogesh Pratap Dinker and Sangeeta Dinker be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned with the following conditions:- (i). that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii). that the applicants shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii). that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; (v). that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (vi). that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail. 8. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial. Order Date :- 20.2.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad