HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27822 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Vidya Kant Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikas Sahay, learned A.G.A.-I assisted by Sri Yogesh Mishra, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 234 of 2020, under Sections 3/25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station Chaubepur, District Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person, Ashutosh Tripathi alias Shiv Tiwari, has already been enlarged on bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.06.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21859 of 2025. 5. 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. 6. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.08.2020. The criminal history 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. 7. The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A.-I. 8. 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vidya Kant Rai Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ramesh Chandra .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 9. 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. 10. Let the applicant- Ramesh Chandra, 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 the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with 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, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 12. 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. 13. It is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. (Krishan Pahal,J.) September 11, 2025 Sumit S BAIL No. 27822 of 2025 2 Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad