Savej Vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20898 of 2025

Savej

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Kushagra Srivastava, Shahrukh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 67

¶7

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶8

List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶9

Heard Sri Shahrukh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Kumar, learned State Law Officer and perused the record.

¶10

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 49 of 2025, under Sections 3/5/8(क) of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station - Niwadi, District - Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶11

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person, Jameel, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 22.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24504 of 2025. It is further submitted that since the case of the applicant is at par to the co-accused, who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

¶12

Learned counsel has also stated that criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant has been explained in the affidavit. The applicant is languishing in jail since 12.04.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

¶13

The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A.. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by him.

¶14

In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020)

¶15

BAIL No. 20898 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

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.

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, evidence on record, pending trial and also considering the bail order of co-accused, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶19

Let the applicant- Savej , 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.

¶20

i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶21

ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

¶22

iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

September 25, 2025 sailesh

¶26

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SAILESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Savej v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savej v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases