Grant of bail based on the principle of parity when a co-accused with a similar role has been released, combined with considerations of judicial pendency and lack of direct incriminating evidence.

1. Heard Sri Shikher Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rishabh Tiwari, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Himanshu Kumar, 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. 108 of 2025, under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of B.N.S. and Section 4/25 of Arms Act, Police Station Swaroop Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of the trial.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that as per the prosecution story, deceased was missing since 17.10.2025. Thereafter, missing report was also lodged on 18.10.2025, after that, the body of the deceased was recovered on 19.10.2025. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged against unknown persons. It is further submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated merely on the basis of CDR report which shows that the applicant called several times to the co-accused, Mohit Singh Tomar and Rishab @ Babu Singh. It is further submitted that there is no recovery of any weapon on pointing out of the applicant and a knife has also been recovered from the co-accused Kanhaiya and postmortem report of the deceased also shows that he received several stab wounds. Therefore, same could be assigned to the co-accused Kanhaiya, not to the applicant. It is further submitted that there is no last seen evidence showing that the deceased was in the company of the applicant. It is further submitted that co-accused Mohit Singh Tomar, has already been released on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10531 of 2026 vide order dated 17.04.2026. Therefore, the applicant having an identical role, is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. It is further submitted that charge sheet has been filed in the present case, therefore, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation. The applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 07.11.2025. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant as well learned A.G.A. for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the fact that similarly situated co-accused has been enlarged on bail and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts as well as considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. , 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the present application is allowed

6. Let the applicant- Prince Dubey, involved in the aforementioned 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, 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 dissu