Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113192 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24249 of 2025 Applicant :- Dharampal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 3. Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Shri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.211 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Pilkhuwa, District- Hapur, during the pendency of trial. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person, Kamlesh, mother-in-law of the deceased person, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 4.7.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.18868 of 2025. The applicant, who happens to be father-in-law of the deceased person, is languishing in jail since 23.4.2025. The criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant stands explained vide supplementary affidavit filed today in Court. 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 counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by them. Learned counsel for the informant has stated that applicant has a criminal history of ten cases. 7. Learned A.G.A. has informed that as per the DCRB report there is a criminal history of two cases only assigned to the applicant. 8. 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 of bail is made out. 9. 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. 10. Let the applicant- Dharampal 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. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. 12. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. 13. 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 :- 15.7.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad