HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25212 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Mr. Saurabh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 583 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 351(3), 140(1), 61(2)A of B.N.S., Police Station Roberstganj, District Sonbhadra, during the pendency of trial. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person, Akhilesh Yadav, has already been enlarged on bail by the same Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28408 of 2025. It is further submitted that since the case of the applicant is at par to the 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 applicant is languishing in jail since 22.06.2025. The criminal history of three cases assigned to the applicant has been explained. 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 aspects of parity to the co-accused and have not been disputed by him. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Saurabh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anand Priya Singh, G.A., Shailendra Singh Akash Singh Alias Abhishek Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 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 by 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- Akash Singh alias Abhishek Singh, 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 shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 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. (Krishan Pahal,J.) September 12, 2025 Sumit S BAIL No. 25212 of 2025 2 Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad