Allahabad High Court
Akeel vs State Of U.P. on 6 October, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:176429
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32314 of 2025
Akeel
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Noor Muhammad, Yogesh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Yogesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Yogesh Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.795 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 283, 332, 353, 336, 342, 436, 307, 188 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Police Station-Rasulpur, District-Firozabad, during the pendency of trial.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person, Aasif has already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.09.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34983 of 2021. The applicant is languishing in jail since 04.08.2025. Criminal history of seven cases 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.
6. 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.
7. The 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.
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-Akeel, 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 pressurize/intimidate 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.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
October 6, 2025
Karan
