HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20655 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Ms. Nusra Siddiqui, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Anjali Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.131 of 2024, under Sections 302, 147, 148, 506, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station- Sasni Gate, District- Aligarh, during the pendency of trial. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person, Shashank Yadav has already been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.3.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.36448 of 2024. The applicant is languishing in jail since 5.2.2025. The criminal history assigned to the applicant has been explained. 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. 5. 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 have not been disputed by them. 6. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anjali Singh Tomer, Gaurav Singh Tomar, Inder Pal Singh Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Manoj Kumar Srivastava Bharat Goswami .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 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. 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. 7. Let the applicant- Bharat Goswami 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. 8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. 9. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. 10. 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. October 8, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 20655 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad