Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:129598 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24367 of 2025 Applicant :- Raj Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Lavlesh Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Lavlesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 127 of 2025, under Sections 310(4), 310(5), 305, 331(4), 109 of BNS and Sections 3/25 of Arms Act, Police Station - Chirgaon, District - Jhansi, during the pendency of trial. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the instant case is a police party firing of no injury case. Similarly placed co-accused person, Irshad and Ravi Pal, have already been enlarged on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 28.7.2025 and 31.7.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 25653 of 2025 and 26335 of 2025, respectively. It is further submitted that since the case of the applicant is at par to the co-accused, who have already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. 5. Learned counsel has further stated that criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant has been explained as he has applied for bail in those cases. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.05.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 6. The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A.. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of parity to the co- accused has not been disputed by him. 7. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, evidence on record, pending trial and in the 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 judgement passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 coupled with the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity. 9. Let the applicant- Raj Yadav, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 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 based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date:- 1.8.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad