The pendency of multiple criminal cases or the gravity of the offense alone is not a sufficient ground to deny bail, particularly when parity with co-accused exists and bail in the base case has already been granted.

1. Heard Learned counsel for the applicant, Learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 77 of 2026, under Section 2(b)(1), 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, registered at P.S. Jiyanpur, District Azamgarh, during the pendency of his trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of single base case shown in the gang chart, in which he has been bailed out. The criminal history of the applicant was considered by this Court while granting bail to him in the base case. The Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the similarly situated co-accused namely Ram Ashish Yadav and Saurabh @ Kariya, who are said to be members of the gang have been granted bail by this Court vide its orders dated 4.5.2026 and 5.5.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. - 14793 of 2026 ( Ram Ashish Yadav Vs. State of U.P.) and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. - 14029 of 2026 ( Saurabh @ Kariya Vs. State of U.P.) respectively. The applicant is not stated to be a previous convict. He is languishing in jail since 13.6.2025. It is further submitted that in case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial proceedings.

4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail. He, however, does not dispute the explanation of the criminal history that has been given by the applicant.

5. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. & Another (2020) 11 SCC 648, while considering a challenge to an order granting bail to an accused having several cases against him, has held in paragraph 7 as under :

"7. On considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, having regard to the circumstances of this case, in our opinion, there has been no wrong or improper exercise of discretion on the part of the High Court in granting bail to the accused. The factors outlined in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 for testing the legality of an order granting bail are absent in the order Vikram Singh v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 5566 impugned. The materials available do not justify arriving at the conclusion that the order impugned suffers from non-application of mind or the reason for granting bail is not borne out from a prima facie view of the evidence on record. The offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are several criminal cases pending against the accused. These factors by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail. The High Court has exercised its discretion in granting bail to the accused Vikram Singh upon considering relevant materials. No ex facie error in the order has been shown by the appellant which would establish exercise of such discretion to be improper. We accordingly sustain the order Vikram Singh v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 5566 of the High Court granting bail. This appeal is dismissed."

6. I have considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by Learned counsels for the parties.

7. The applicant has been shown to be indulged in one base case mentioned in the gang chart. This Court while considering the bail application of the applicant in the base case being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4982 of 2026 had considered the pendency of the criminal cases against the applicant. Similarly situated co-accused namely Ram Ashish Yadav and Saurabh @ Kariya have already been granted bail by this Court. The applicant is said to