Grant of bail based on the principle of parity with co-accused and the absence of a specific role attributed to the applicant in the FIR.

1. Heard Sri Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.P. Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

2. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 230 of 2026, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 125(2), 109(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, registered at Police Station Bannadevi, District Aligarh, during pendency of the trial.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he has been languishing in jail since 16.3.2206. It is further submitted that co-accused Ayush Sharma, Yash Gupta and Prafull Pandit have already been granted bail by this Court. It is further submitted that as per FIR 12 named and 10-12 unknown persons are said to have indulged in fighting with each other, however, no specific role has been assigned to the applicant. It is further submitted that applicant is having criminal history which has been duly explained in the memo of application. It is also submitted that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant.

5. Co-accused Ayush Sharma, Yash Gupta and Prafull Pandit have already been granted bail by this Court. As per FIR 12 named and 10-12 unknown persons are said to have indulged in fighting with each other, however, no specific role has been assigned to the applicant.

6. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected from record and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is ALLOWED

7. Let the applicant- Honey Shivaji involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of B.N.S.S.

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

9. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.