Shivam @ Shivan vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others

2. Heard Shri Mohit Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State / State Law Officer and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 586 of 2025, under Sections 70(2), 351(3) BNS and Section 5g/6 of POCSO Act, P.S. Jhinjhana, District Shamli, during the pendency of trial.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person, Pradeep Kumar has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 25.3.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4145 of 2026. He further submitted that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of 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 27.11.2025 having no criminal history.

5. The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspects of parity to the co-accused and of no criminal history of the applicant, have not been disputed by him.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in 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 judgements passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 and in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

7. Let the applicant- Shivam @ Shivan involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

9. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

10. 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 on the testimony of the witnesses.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

May 7, 2026

Sushma