Allahabad High Court
HIMANSHU CHAUDHARYversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
Bail was granted to the applicant on the ground of parity with a co‑accused who had been released on bail in similar circumstances.
Summary
Himanshu Chaudhary applied for bail in a criminal case (No.330 of 2025) under Section 103(1) B.N.S. while the trial was pending. He had been in custody since 17 November 2025 and argued that a co‑accused, Anku @ Ankush Kumar, had been granted bail in a similar circumstance, establishing a claim of parity. The State opposed the bail but did not dispute the factual similarity. Relying on the principle of parity and precedents such as Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha v. State of U.P., Paras Ram Vishnoi v. CBI, and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, the Court found the applicant’s case for bail sufficient. Consequently, the bail application was allowed, subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions against tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses. The order emphasized that breach of conditions would lead to cancellation of bail and would not affect the trial on merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the applicant under Section 103(1) B.N.S. during the pendency of trial.
- Whether the principle of parity with a co‑accused who was granted bail warrants the applicant’s release on bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103(1)
Subjects
- bail
- parity
- criminal procedure
- Section 103
- trial pendency
- sureties
- witness tampering
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9347 of 2026
Himanshu Chaudhary
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jai Shanker Malviya, Rajendra Prasad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
(Sr. No.13 out of 116)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Jai Shanker Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed
on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.330 of 2025, under Section 103(1)
B.N.S., Police Station Bhagatpur, District Moradabad, during the pendency
of trial.
4. Learned counsel submits that similarly placed co-accused, Anku @
Ankush Kumar, has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated
17.02.2026 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5826 of 2026, hence, the
applicant, having an identical role and no criminal history, is entitled to bail
on parity. He is in jail since 17.11.2025 and will not misuse the liberty of
bail.
5. 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
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,
BAIL No. 9347 of 2026
2
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.
7. Let the applicant- Himanshu Chaudhary, 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…