HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29392 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.196 of 2024, under Sections 3/5A/5B/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act 1955 and Section 11 of the Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act, Police Station-Alinagar, District-Chandauli, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is not named in FIR and his name has come up in the State of co-accused Chhote Lal. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person, Chhote Lal and Buddhu Saw alias Ghanshyam has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 23.09.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34214 of 2024. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.04.2025 The criminal history of 3 case assigned to the applicant stands explained. 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. 5. The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by him. 6. 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. 7. In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Brijesh Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ninha @ Bachcha @ Mohammad Hussain .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and in 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 judgment of Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825, 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. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity. 9. Let the applicant-Ninha @ Bachcha @ Mohammad Hussain, 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. September 10, 2025 Karan BAIL No. 29392 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad