Allahabad High Court
SANDEEP RAJBHARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The applicant is entitled to bail on the ground of parity with the co‑accused.
Summary
The High Court of Allahabad considered the bail application of Sandeep Rajbhar, who had been in custody since 25 July 2025 in connection with offences under Sections 137(2), 115(2), 123, 70(2), 351(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Bailable Non‑Bailable (BNS) provisions and Sections 5(G) and 6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant argued that a co‑accused, Chhotelal Rajbhar, had already been released on bail by a coordinate bench, and therefore, on the ground of parity, he should also be granted bail. The State opposed the bail but did not dispute the applicant’s lack of prior criminal record or the parity argument. Relying on precedents such as Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha v. State of U.P., Paras Ram Vishnoi v. DCI, and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. Consequently, the bail application was allowed, subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted on the ground of parity with a co‑accused who has already been released
- Whether the nature of the offences under BNS and POCSO precludes bail
- Whether the applicant’s clean criminal record warrants bail
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- parity principle
- POCSO
- criminal procedure
- sureties
- non‑bailable offences
- Uttar Pradesh
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39115 of 2025
Sandeep Rajbhar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shantanu Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Arjun Kumar Gautam, Awaneesha
Kumar, G.A., Narendra Singh
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 65 out of 262)
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 6.3.2026 but none is present on
behalf of the informant.
2. Heard Sri Shantanu Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant
and Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer and perused the
record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 189 of 2025, under Sections
137(2), 115(2), 123, 70(2), 351(3) of BNS and Sections 5(G)/6 of
POCSO Act, Police Station - Madhuban, District - Mau, during the
pendency of trial.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed
co-accused person, Chhotelal Rajbhar has already been enlarged on bail
by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.03.2026 passed in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 36427 of 2025. It is further
submitted that since the case of the applicant is at par to the co-accused,
who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged
on bail on the ground of parity.
5. Learned counsel has also stated that the applicant is languishing in jail
since 25.07.2025, having no criminal history. In case, the applicant is
released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate
BAIL No. 39115 of 2025
2
with trial.
6. The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned State Law
Officer. 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.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made
by learned counsel for the parties, evidence on record, pending trial and in
the 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 judgement passed by the
Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau
of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 coupled with the judgement
of Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation and another reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51, without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view
that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. The bail
application is allowed on the ground of parity.
8. Let the applicant- Sandeep Rajbhar, be released on bail on furnishing
a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court
concerned, subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he
shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear
before the trial court as required.
9. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
April 2, 2026
Siddhant
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…