HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26930 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Shri Atul Kumar and Sri Sandeep Tripathi, learned counsels for the applicant as well as Shri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 294 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 109(1), 352, 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station- New Mandi, District- Muzaffar Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person, Tabrej has already been enlarged on bail by the trial court vide order dated 8.7.2025 passed in Bail Application No.3427 of 2025. The applicant is languishing in jail since 7.7.2025. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant has been explained in paragraph-17 to the affidavit filed with bail application. 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. The FIR itself is delayed by about eight days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 5. 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. 6. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Atul Kumar, Sandeep Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Abdul Gaffar .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Though It Principal Secretary (Home) .....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. 8. Let the applicant- Abdul Gaffar 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. 9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. 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. September 11, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 26930 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad