Ravi Rajput vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ...

HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. This is first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant who is involved in FIR/Case Crime No.0038 of 2026, under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352, 127(2), 310(2), 317(3), 324(2) B.N.S., Police Station- Hazratganj, District- Lucknow.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant is not named in the FIR. His name has surfaced in the confessional statement of the co-accused. It is further submitted that no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. The main role is assigned to the co-accused person namely, Ayush Yadav, while Rs.2000/- along with one mobile has been recovered from the present applicant. It is further submitted that as per statement of the complainant, no role whatsoever has been assigned to the present applicant. Moreover, no test identification parade has been done by the investigating agency.

4. It is further submitted that criminal history of two cases is duly explained in para no.10 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application and he is in jail since 01.03.2026. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the prosecution witnesses. He undertakes that in case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. It is further submitted that identically situated co-accused person, namely, Ayush Yadav and Ayush Balmiki have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 27.04.2026 and 04.05.2026 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.2747 of 2026 and 2403 of 2026 respectively, hence the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record and considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 01.03.2026; criminal history of two cases is duly explained in para no.10 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application; identically situated co-accused persons, namely, Ayush Yadav and Ayush Balmiki have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 27.04.2026 and 04.05.2026 respectively and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail on the ground of parity.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

8. Let the applicant- Ravi Rajput be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court, either personally or through his counsel.

Any other condition(s) which the trial court/concerned court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed.

9. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

(Rajeev Bharti,J.)

May 6, 2026

Anand/-