Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:139049 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28046 of 2025 Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Singh,Ravindra Singh,Sharadey Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Ravi Jha, holding brief of Sri Rahul Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 270 of 2025, under Sections 111, 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), 352, 351(3) and 61(2) of BNS and Section 3/21 of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, Police Station Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that it is true that the applicant has criminal history of 23 more cases assigned to the applicant and he has been enlarged on bail in 14 of those cases and has applied for bail in the remaining nine cases. Learned counsel has further stated that all the cases were instituted against the applicant regarding one and the same company in the year 2024- 25. 5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the case of applicant is at par with co-accused Vipul Shukla, who has already been enlarged on bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.05.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17463 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. The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.03.2025. 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 aspects of parity to the co- accused, have 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 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- Santosh Kumar Mishra, 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. 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 :- 14.8.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad