HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31923 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.302 of 2025, under Sections 140(1), 115(2), 351(3), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 61(2) B.N.S., Police Station Panki, District Mainpuri, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has claimed parity with co-accused person Pranjal Gautam who has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 27.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.31839 of 2025, as such, 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 only disparity is that the there is recovery of Rs.60 from the possession of the applicant, otherwise the case of the applicant is at par with the co-accused person. Neither the co-accused person nor the applicant were named in the FIR. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that it is true that the applicant was the friend of victim, but an altercation ensued between youths over eating at hotel, as such, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no criminal history of the applicant. He is languishing in jail since 09.08.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjay Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Harshit Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) misuse the liberty of bail. 6. The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. on the ground that it is a real case and the applicant was the friend of victim and has misused the said faith the victim deposed in the applicant and he alongwith other co-accused persons had abducted him for demand of ransom. 7. Learned counsel for the informant has further stated that the victim was having quite a heavy amount of money in his account and was carrying an ATM card, as such, the said abduction was done for extraction of money from the victim only, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail on the ground of parity. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity. 9. Let the applicant- Harshit 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 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. September 24, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 31923 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad