Jitu Raikwar @ Jitendra and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21616 of 2025 Court No. - 65 (Sl. No.92 out of 259) HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶1List has been revised. As informed by learned A.G.A. notice to the informant has been served on 4.6.2025.

¶2Heard Shri Satya Prakash Rathor, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Chandra Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant as well as Shri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶3Applicants seek bail in Case Crime No. 145 of 2025, under Sections 125, 49, 74, 351(2), 352, 333, 64, 62 BNS and 5/6 POCSO Act,, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Mahoba, during the pendency of trial.

¶4It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that similarly placed co-accused person, Manmohan Raikwar has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 13.4.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21481 of 2025. The applicants are languishing in jail since

29.3.2025, having no criminal history. He further submitted that since the role of the applicants is identical to that of co-accused, who has already been enlarged on bail, they are also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

¶5The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant. However, the aforesaid factual aspects of parity to the co-accused and of no criminal history of the applicants, have not been disputed by him. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashish Pandey, Satya Prakash Rathor Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Chandra Prakash Tiwari, G.A. Jitu Raikwar @ Jitendra And Another .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s)

¶6Considering the facts and circumstances of the case 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 judgements passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 and in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶7Let the applicants-Jitu Raikwar @ Jitendra and Viru Raikwar @ Virendra involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

(i) The applicants shall not tamper with evidence.

(ii) The applicants 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 applicants 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 them in accordance with law.

¶8In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶9Identity, status and residence proof of the applicants and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶10It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion on the testimony of the witnesses. April 23, 2026 Shalini BAIL No. 21616 of 2025 (Krishan Pahal,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad