HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23650 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. There is an illness slip of Sri Upendra Upadhyay, one of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the applicant. Sri Wahid Jamal, another counsel appearing for the applicant has argued the matter. 3. Heard Shri Wahid Jamal, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Sushil Kumar Shukla, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.168 of 2025, under Sections 8/22 of N.D.P.S. Act and Sections 303(2), 305(a), 317(4), 338, 336(3) B.N.S., Police Station- Amapur, District- Kasganj, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, 720 gram of Diazepam powder is stated to have been recovered from the possession of applicant and other accused persons are stated to have caught hold of two buffaloes. The modus operandi of the applicant and other co-accused persons was to render the buffaloes incapacitated. The applicant and other accused persons were apprehended by the police on 4.5.2025 at 11:30 p.m. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused person, Bablu has already been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.8.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.21935 of 2025. The only difference between the case of applicant and Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Upendra Upadhyay, Wahid Jamal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Arvan .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) that of the co-accused Bablu is that applicant was found in possession of said Diazepam powder, otherwise the case of the applicant is at par with that of co-accused person Bablu. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 5.5.2025. 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. 8. The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned State Law Officer. However, the aforesaid factual aspects of parity to the co-accused have not been disputed by him. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Let the applicant- Arvan 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. BAIL No. 23650 of 2025 2 (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. 13. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. 14. 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. September 12, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 23650 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad