Allahabad High Court
RAVI KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
Bail was granted to Ravi Kumar on the ground of parity with the co‑accused.
Summary
Ravi Kumar was arrested in connection with a case (Crime No. 169 of 2025) involving offences under Sections 191(2), 103(1), 352, 351(3) and 3(5) of the Indian Penal Code and the B.N.S. He applied for bail, arguing that a co‑accused, Arun Prajapati, had been granted bail in a similar circumstance and that he had no prior criminal record. The State opposed the bail but did not dispute the parity argument. The Court, relying on the principle of parity and citing Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha v. State of U.P., Paras Ram Vishnoi v. Director CBI and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, held that the applicant was entitled to bail. Accordingly, bail was granted on the condition of a personal bond, two sureties, and standard conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses. The order emphasized that any breach would lead to cancellation of bail and would not affect the trial on merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail on the ground of parity with a co‑accused who was previously released
- Whether the nature of the offences and the applicant’s lack of criminal history justify bail during trial
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 191(2), 351(3), 352
Subjects
- bail
- parity
- criminal procedure
- co‑accused
- Indian Penal Code
- high court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9341 of 2026
Ravi Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mahesh Kumar, Ravi Shankar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
(Sr. No.11 out of 116)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Mahesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajendra
Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the
material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.169 of 2025, under Sections
191(2), 103(1), 352, 351(3), 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station Kalyanpur, District
Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel submits that similarly placed co-accused, Arun Prajapati,
has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 15.10.2025 in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No.34649 of 2025, hence, the applicant, having an
identical role and no criminal history, is entitled to bail on parity. He is in
jail since 08.05.2025 and will not misuse the liberty of bail.
5. 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.
6. 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
BAIL No. 9341 of 2026
2
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.
7. Let the applicant- Ravi Kumar, 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.
8. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
March 19, 2026
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…