BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25613 of 2025 Altamash State of U.P v. State of U.P & Anr.
Case at a glance
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Outcome
Bail granted
The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ss. 109(1), 121(1), 132, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 223, 309(4), 324(5), 326G
- Public Property Damage of Prevention Act
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made…
Judgment
Heard Ms. Ghazala Bano Quadri, Sri Maseeh Uddin, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.305 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109(1), 121(1), 324(5), 326G, 309(4), 223, 132 B.N.S., 2023, 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 and 2/3 Public Property Damage of Prevention Act, Police Station Nakhasa, District Sambhal, during the pendency of trial.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person Mohd. Faizan has already been enlarged on bail by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 6.8.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.22565 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 of two cases assigned to the applicant stands explained. He is languishing in jail since 08.12.2024. 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 A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not 2 BAIL No. 25613 of 2025 been disputed by him.
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 for bail is made out.
Operative part
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail on the ground of parity. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.
Let the applicant- Altamash, 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. September 18, 2025 (Ravi Kant) (Krishan Pahal,J.) RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 109(1), 121(1), 132, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 223, 309(4), 324(5), 326G; Public Property Damage of Prevention Act.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.