Vinod vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Vinod vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail granted to applicant Vinod on the ground of parity, 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 conditions to be a ground for cancellation of bail; sureties to be verified before release order is issued.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, whose role is claimed to be identical to that of co-accused Kapoor Singh Alias Raj Narayan already enlarged on bail, is entitled to bail on the ground of parity. +1 more

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances, and in light of Nanha (1993 Crl.L.J. 938), Paras Ram Vishnoi (MANU/SCOR/22410/2021) and Satender Kumar Antil ((2022) 10 SCC 51), the applicant has made out a case for bail; the bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

Ratio / Principle

The applicant Vinod is 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, with sureties to be verified before issuance of the release order, subject to conditions (no tampering with evidence, no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses, appearance before the trial court on dates fixed), breach of which shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Key takeaways

Observations made while granting bail shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.obiter¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Case Crime No.189 of 2024, P.S. Saarh, District Kanpur Nagar, under Sections 191(3), 191(2), 190, 103(1), 352, 351(2), 3(5) B.N.S. — applicant in jail since 20.10.2024 — parity pleaded with co-accused Kapoor Singh Alias Raj Narayan, enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Bench on 18.8.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.22270 of 2025; identity of role not disputed by the State — criminal history explained — relying on Nanha (1993 Crl.L.J. 938), Paras Ram Vishnoi (MANU/SCOR/22410/2021), Satender Kumar Antil ((2022) 10 SCC 51) and the principle in Prabhakar Tewari ((2020) 11 SCC 648) that pendency of criminal cases alone is no ground to refuse bail — bail application allowed on the ground of parity; release on personal bond and two sureties with conditions; observations not to affect trial court's independent opinion.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42428 of 2025

Vinod

.....Applicant(s)

Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Devendra Kumar Misra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 67

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

List has been revised.

Heard Sri Devendra Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.189 of 2024, under Sections 191(3), 191(2), 190, 103(1), 352, 351(2), 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station Saarh, District Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person Kapoor Singh Alias Raj Narayan has already been enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.8.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.22270 of 2025, as such, 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. The criminal history assigned to the applicant stands explained. He is languishing in jail since 20.10.2024. 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 State Law Officer. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by him.

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

BAIL No. 42428 of 2025

2

(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 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 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- Vinod , 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.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

December 10, 2025

(Ravi Kant)

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad