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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail allowed on the ground of parity; applicant Rashik to be released on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence, pressurizing/intimidating prosecution witnesses, and requiring appearance before the trial court; prosecution at liberty to move for bail cancellation on breach.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Rashik, facing trial in Case Crime No. 46 of 2022 under Sections 302, 201, 34 I.P.C. (Police Station-Behat, District-Saharanpur), is entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity with similarly placed co-accused Firoz, who has already been enlarged on bail. +1 more

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances, the submissions of learned counsel, the evidence on record, and the cited judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court held that the applicant has made out a case for bail on the ground of parity, and allowed the bail application on that ground.

Ratio / Principle

Applicant Rashik 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: (i) not tampering with evidence during trial; (ii) not pressurizing/intimidating the prosecution witnesses; (iii) appearing before the trial court on the date fixed; in case of breach, the prosecution may move a bail cancellation application before this Court.

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 on the testimony of the witnesses.obiter¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted on parity — Allahabad High Court (Krishan Pahal, J.), 13 October 2025, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 33693 of 2025: applicant Rashik, languishing in jail since 04.02.2022, sought bail during pendency of trial in Case Crime No. 46 of 2022 under Sections 302, 201, 34 I.P.C., Police Station-Behat, District-Saharanpur. His role being identical to that of co-accused Firoz, already enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 01.10.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31180 of 2024, and the learned A.G.A. not disputing these parity facts, the Court allowed bail solely on the ground of parity without expressing any opinion on the merits. Having no previous criminal history apart from one case under the Arms Act instituted subsequently, the Court took into account Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another (2020 (11) SCC 648) — pendency of criminal cases itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail — along with Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (MANU/SCOR/22410/2021), this Court's Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P. (1993 Cri.L.J. 938) and Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2022 SCC OnLine SC 825). Release ordered on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, conditioned on non-tampering with evidence, no pressure/intimidation of prosecution witnesses and appearance before the trial court; breach invites a cancellation application before this Court; observations in granting bail declared not to affect the trial Judge's independent opinion on witness testimony.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33693 of 2025

Rashik

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P.		....	.Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Nasir Hussa	Pandey, in	Arvind
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 67

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

List has been revised.

Heard Shri Nasir Hussain, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Ashwini Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 46 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201, 34 I.P.C., Police Station-Behat, District-Saharanpur, during the pendency of trial.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person, Firoz has already been enlarged on bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.10.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31180 of 2024. The applicant is languishing in jail since 04.02.2022, having no previous criminal history. One case under Arms Act has been instituted subsequently. He further submitted that 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.

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

The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And

BAIL No. 33693 of 2025

2

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.

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.

Let the applicant- Rashik 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.

(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.

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

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

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.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

October 13, 2025

Karan

Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad