Vijay Singh v. State of U.P

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30127 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶1List has been revised.

¶2Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashutosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶3Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.0046 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 61(2)(a) B.N.S., Police Station Khiri, District Yamuna Nagar (Commissionerate Prayagraj), during the pendency of trial.

¶4It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person Shubham Singh @ Sarvashakti Singh has already been enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated

17.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.29859 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 criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant stands explained. He is languishing in jail since 16.04.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶5The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by them. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashutosh Kumar Tiwari, G.A. Vijay Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s)

¶6The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another,

(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 for bail is made out.

¶7Considering 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 applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶8Let the applicant-Vijay 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.

¶9In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶10It 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. October 8, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 30127 of 2025 (Krishan Pahal,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad