Anuj Srivastava vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

Anuj Srivastava vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail granted to applicant Anuj Srivastava on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions (no tampering with evidence, no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses, appearance before the trial court on dates fixed); sureties to be verified before release order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, whose role is stated to be identical to that of co-accused already enlarged on bail, is entitled to bail in Case Crime No. 441 of 2020 under Sections 302, 404, 411 and 34 IPC on the ground of parity.

Court's answer

The Court held that the applicant has made out a case for bail and allowed the bail application on the ground of parity.

Ratio / Principle

The applicant Anuj Srivastava was directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence, shall not pressurise/intimidate prosecution witnesses, and shall appear before the trial court on dates fixed; breach of any condition shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Key takeaways

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.obiter¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25871 of 2025 — Anuj Srivastava v. State of U.P. — High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Krishan Pahal, J.), decided October 30, 2025: Bail granted in Case Crime No. 441 of 2020 under Sections 302, 404, 411 and 34 IPC, Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Prayagraj/Allahabad, solely on the ground of parity, since similarly placed co-accused Raj Krishna Srivastava @ Baccha (order dated 16.10.2025 in Bail Application No. 14020 of 2025) and Ankit Pasi (order dated 27.05.2025 in Bail Application No. 40184 of 2024) had already been enlarged on bail and the A.G.A. did not dispute the parity; applicant in jail since 15.05.2020 with no criminal history; reliance placed on Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha v. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938, Paras Ram Vishnoi v. The Director, CBI, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021, and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51; release on personal bond and two sureties with conditions against tampering with evidence and intimidating prosecution witnesses and to appear before the trial court on dates fixed; breach to be ground for cancellation; bail observations not to affect the trial Judge's independent opinion.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25871 of 2025

Anuj Srivastava

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Archana Maurya, Pt. S.P. Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 67

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

List has been revised.

Heard Shri S.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 441 of 2020, under Sections 302, 404, 411 and 34 of I.P.C., Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Prayagraj/Allahabad during the pendency of trial.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person, Raj Krishna Srivastava @ Baccha and Ankit Pasi have already been enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 16.10.2025 & 27.05.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14020 of 2025 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40184 of 2024 respectively, as such, since the role of the applicant is identical to that of coaccused, who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. There is no criminal history of the applicant. He is languishing in jail since 15.05.2020. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

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.

Considering 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

BAIL No. 25871 of 2025

2

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.

Let the applicant- Anuj Srivastava, 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.

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

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.

October 30, 2025 SY

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

Digitally signed by :- SWETA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad