Raj Kumar vs State of U.P.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.54 of 2025, under Section 103(1) BNS, Police Station Sachendi, District Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

¶11

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person, Sandeep has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 8.8.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.24016 of 2025. The applicant is languishing in jail since 7.2.2025.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused, who has already been enlarged on bail, except a fact that there is recovery of an axe at the pointing out of applicant, as such, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. The criminal history assigned to the applicant has been explained.

¶13

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

¶14

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 of bail is made out.

¶15

BAIL No. 32706 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and also taking into consideration the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 and the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Cri.L.J. 938 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 , and 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 on the ground of parity. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶18

Let the applicant- Raj Kumar involved in aforementioned case crime number 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 following conditions.

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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 on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶23

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶24

November 26, 2025

¶25

Vikas Verma

¶26

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar 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

Nitish vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Omkar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pradeep Yadav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amir Khan vs State of U.P.

Rajkumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pankaj vs State of U.P. and 3 Others