Allahabad High Court
AMAN GAUNDversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
Bail was granted to the applicant on the ground of parity with a similarly placed co‑accused.
Summary
Aman Gaund was arrested in connection with Crime No. 25 of 2026, charged under multiple sections of the Criminal Procedure Code, the POCSO Act and the SC/ST Act. He applied for bail during the pendency of trial, arguing that a co‑accused, Nitesh Vishwarkarma, had already been released on bail and that he had no prior criminal record. The State opposed the bail but did not dispute the parity argument. The High Court examined the facts, noted the identical role of the applicant to the co‑accused and the absence of any criminal history, and concluded that the applicant had made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the Court granted bail on the ground of parity, subject to a personal bond, two sureties and conditions such as non‑tampering with evidence and personal appearance before the trial court.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused facing multiple serious charges under the Cr.P.C., POCSO Act and SC/ST Act.
- Whether the grant of bail to a co‑accused on identical charges creates a right of parity for the applicant.
- Whether the applicant's lack of prior criminal history influences the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 115(2), 351(3), 352, 61(2), 62, 70(2), 75, 78
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 5G, 6
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)da, 3(1)dha, 3(2)(V), 3(2)(Va)
Subjects
- bail
- parity
- co‑accused
- Criminal Procedure Code
- POCSO Act
- SC/ST Act
- high court
- bail conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14409 of 2026
Aman Gaund
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Karunesh Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 49 out of 265)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to
the informant has been served on 28.4.2026.
2. Heard Shri Karunesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as
well as Shri R.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer and perused the record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 25 of 2026, under Sections 61(2),
70(2), 62, 75, 78, 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS and 5G/6 POCSO Act and
3(1)da, 3(1)dha, 3(2)(Va), 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station Uruwa Bazaar,
District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed
co-accused person, Nitesh Vishwarkarma has already been enlarged on bail
by this Court vide order dated 21.4.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 12336 of 2026. He further submitted that 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 applicant is languishing in jail since 4.2.2026 having no criminal
history.
5. The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A.
However, the aforesaid factual aspects of parity to the co-accused and of no
criminal history of the applicant, have not been disputed by him.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the
BAIL No. 14409 of 2026
2
similarly placed co-accused person has already been enlarged on bail, 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.
7. Let the applicant- Aman Gaund, involved in aforementioned case crime
number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy
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.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed
for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is
deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat
such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with
law.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
9. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be
verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
10. 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.)
May 7, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…