Allahabad High Court
Vicky Alias Vikram Nath Goswami vs State Of U.P. on 12 September, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:162659
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9883 of 2025
Vicky Alias Vikram Nath Goswami
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Chandan Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Akash Rawat, G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. None is present on behalf of the informant.
2. Second supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant today is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Chandan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Kumar, learned State Law Officer and perused the record.
4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 04 of 2025, under Sections 140(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Kotwali Hathras Gate, District Hathras, during the pendency of trial.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person, Sujal Kumar, has already been enlarged on bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19578 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. The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.02.2025. The criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant has been explained as in one case, he has been bailed out and another case relates to U.P. Gangster Act which is pending. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate 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 have not been disputed by him.
7. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.
8. 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.
9. Let the applicant-Vicky Alias Vikram Nath Goswami, 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 the 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.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
11. 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.
(Krishan Pahal,J.) September 12, 2025 Sumit S