# Varish Khan v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 1289
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-22
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10397 of 2024
- **Bench:** Sanjay Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/varish-khan-v-state-of-u-p-53875
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

G.A.

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether applicant should be granted bail on the
ground of parity with co-accused Farman, who
was earlier granted bail, during pendency of
trial.

HEADNOTES
Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure
(CrPC), 1973 - Section 436A - Indian
Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections - 396,
412 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section - 4, 25 -
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Section 479- Second bail application filed by
applicant after first was dismissed for want of
prosecution - FIR - offence of brutal murder of
four family members and grievous injury to one
survivor - Recovery of weapons and looted
property from accused persons - Co-accused
Farman
obtained
bail
allegedly
by
misrepresentation of facts - Court observed that,
parity cannot be claimed when earlier bail order
was obtained by concealment - the trial is
ongoing, witnesses have been examined - held
- considering the gravity of heinous offences
and in the light of Supreme Court precedents,
the Bail application rejected - however, trial
court is directed to expedite the trial without
granting any unnecessary adjournment to either
of the parties. (Para - 9, 10, 11, 12, 14)
Application Rejected. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. & Another,
(2022) 8 SCC 559 - Shabeen Ahmad vs. State of
U.P. & Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 479 - X vs.
1290 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
State of Rajasthan & Another, 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 3539.
LIST OF ACTS
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Arms Act, 1959.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
First Bail Application - Second Bail Application -
Parity Principle - Heinous Offence - Concealment
of Facts - Murder and Dacoity - Recovery of
Weapons - Trial in Progress - Criminal History -
Expeditious Trial.
CASE ARISING FROM
Case Crime No. 136 of 2020 - Police Station:
Holagarh, District Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh.
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Arun Kumar Tripathi,
Swati Agrawal Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s): Shri Mr. Rajesh
Kumar Rao, learned Additional Government
Advocate assisted by Ms. Pratiksha Rai, learned
Brief Holder.

## Text

9 All. Varish Khan Vs. State of U.P.
1289
18(1) merely because the allottee has taken
the possession without protest and there
being no dispute with regard to the date of
possession of the project and the date of
offer of possession, no appeal could be
preferred before this Court in excess of
what was argued before the Tribunal and
thus, to that extent, the appeal would not
even lie on any issue beyond what was
argued before the Tribunal. Even if the
submission of the Counsel for the appellant
that the appellate court was wrong in
recording that there was admission with
regard to delay in delivery of possession
and the admission was confined only to that
effect that apartment could not be delivered
to the allottee and there was no admission
to liability to pay interest,would not alter
the final out come as it is already held that
the statutory interest is essentially a
mathematical exercise and does not require
any adjudicatory exercise.. Thus, Question
No.(iii) is also answered accordingly.

43. In view of all the reasons recorded
above, all the appeals filed by Promoter
deserve
to
be
dismissed
and
are
accordingly
dismissed.
The
Appeal
preferred by the Allottee also deserves to
be dismissed as no arguments were
advanced for payment of compensation
before the Tribunal and thus will not give
rise to any substantial question of Law
arising from the impugned judgment.

44. Senior Registrar of this Court is
directed to send a copy of this order to the
Secretary, Law, Government of U.P. for
information and compliance.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 1289
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.09.2025

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10397 of
2024

Varish Khan ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Arun Kumar Tripathi, Swati Agarwal
Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether applicant should be granted bail on the
ground of parity with co-accused Farman, who
was earlier granted bail, during pendency of
trial.

HEADNOTES
Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure
(CrPC), 1973 - Section 436A - Indian
Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections - 396,
412 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section - 4, 25 -
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Section 479- Second bail application filed by
applicant after first was dismissed for want of
prosecution - FIR - offence of brutal murder of
four family members and grievous injury to one
survivor - Recovery of weapons and looted
property from accused persons - Co-accused
Farman
obtained
bail
allegedly
by
misrepresentation of facts - Court observed that,
parity cannot be claimed when earlier bail order
was obtained by concealment - the trial is
ongoing, witnesses have been examined - held
- considering the gravity of heinous offences
and in the light of Supreme Court precedents,
the Bail application rejected - however, trial
court is directed to expedite the trial without
granting any unnecessary adjournment to either
of the parties. (Para - 9, 10, 11, 12, 14)
Application Rejected. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. & Another,
(2022) 8 SCC 559 - Shabeen Ahmad vs. State of
U.P. & Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 479 - X vs.
1290 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
State of Rajasthan & Another, 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 3539.
LIST OF ACTS
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Arms Act, 1959.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
First Bail Application - Second Bail Application -
Parity Principle - Heinous Offence - Concealment
of Facts - Murder and Dacoity - Recovery of
Weapons - Trial in Progress - Criminal History -
Expeditious Trial.
CASE ARISING FROM
Case Crime No. 136 of 2020 - Police Station:
Holagarh, District Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh.
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Arun Kumar Tripathi,
Swati Agrawal Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s): Shri Mr. Rajesh
Kumar Rao, learned Additional Government
Advocate assisted by Ms. Pratiksha Rai, learned
Brief Holder.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar
Singh, J.)

 1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Rao, learned
Additional Government Advocate assisted by
Ms. Pratiksha Rai, learned Brief Holder
representing the State and perused the record.

 2.
The
instant
second
bail
application has been filed on behalf of
applicant-Varish Khan with a prayer to
release him on bail in Case Crime No. 136
of 2020, under Sections 396, 412 I.P.C. and
Section 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station
Holagarh, District Prayagraj, during the
pendency of trial.

 3. First bail application of the
applicant was dismissed for want of
prosecution by this Court vide order dated
01.03.2023
in
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No. 33455 of 2022.
 4. Brief facts of the case, which
are
required
to
be
stated
are
that
complainant-Ashok Kumar Pandey got a
first
information
report
lodged
on
03.07.2020 against unknown person stating
inter-alia that his younger brother, Vimlesh
Kumar Pandey alias Lallan, had been living
in his house in village Shukla Ka Pura,
Barriharakh,
Police
Station
Holagarh,
District Prayagraj for the last about 25
years.
In
the
night
intervening
02/03.03.2020,Vimlesh
Kumar
Pandey
alias Lallan, his daughters Km. Simu &
Shibu and son Prince were hacked to death
with sharp weapons by unknown persons,
whereas his wife Smt. Rachna Panday
received serious injures and was admitted
in Swaroop Rani Hospital.

5. During investigation, complicity
of five persons namely Sarik, Shahrukh,
Dabar, Varish and Farman came into light
and they were arrested together. They, in
their statements, confessed that they
have
murdered
the
aforesaid
four
persons
and
looted
money
and
ornaments kept in the house. They also
disclosed that Shahrukh was standing
outside the house and keeping a vigil on
the passerby. Sarik and Mobin were
armed with Chapad, Dabar was armed
with axe, whereas applicant-Varish and
Farman were armed with knife. Weapons
of crime and money were also recovered
from their possession.

6.
Learned
counsel
for
the
applicant submits that co-accused Farman
has been granted bail by the coordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated
19.12.2023
in
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No. 1059 of 2023, hence the
applicant who is languishing in jail since
17.07.2020, is also liable to be released on
bail on the ground of parity.
9 All. Varish Khan Vs. State of U.P.
1291
7. In response, learned Additional
Government Advocate referring paragraph
No. 5 of the order dated 19.12.2023 of the
co-accused Farman submits that Farman
has been granted bail considering one of
the submissions that despite three years
having been elapsed even charge has not
been framed, whereas charge was framed
before passing the order dated 19.12.2023
and examination-in-chief of complainant
Ashok Kumar Pandey was also recorded on
25.08.2023 as such co-accused Farman has
obtained bail by placing wrong fact before
the coordinate Bench and thereafter other
co-accused, namely, Sarik, Mobin and
Shahrukh have been granted bail on the
ground of parity of bail order dated
19.12.2023 of Farman. Hence no case of
parity is made out.

8. Hon?ble Supreme Court in
Deepak Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and
another,
(2022)
8
SCC
559,
after
considering catena of judgements on the
guiding principle for adjudicating a regular
bail, held as under:

 27. "The importance of assigning
reasoning for grant or denial of bail can
never be undermined. There is prima facie
need to indicate reasons particularly in
cases of grant or denial of bail where the
accused is charged with a serious offence.
The sound reasoning in a particular case is
a reassurance that discretion has been
exercised by the decision maker after
considering all the relevant grounds and by
disregarding extraneous considerations.?

 "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"

 41.
?Grant
of
bail
to
the
respondent No. 2/accused only on the basis
of parity shows that the impugned order
passed by the High Court suffers from the
vice of non-application of mind rendering it
unsustainable. The High Court has not
taken into consideration the criminal
history of respondent No. 2/accused, nature
of crime, material evidences available,
involvement of respondent No. 2/accused
in the said crime and recovery of weapon
from his possession."

9. Having heard learned counsel
for the parties, I find substance in the
submission
of
learned
Additional
Government Advocate for the State as
noted above. I also find that it is a very
serious matter in which four persons have
been done to death and Smt. Rachna
Pandey was seriously injured. Further,
since co-accused Farman has obtained bail
order dated 19.12.2023 by concealment of
correct facts as noted above, hence parity
of such order cannot be extended to the
applicant. Moreover, this Court is of the
view that a Judge is not bound to grant bail
to an accused on the ground of parity if the
order granting bail contain wrong facts. If
any illegality is brought to the notice of the
Court, the same shall not be permitted to
perpetuate.

10. Pursuant to the order of this
Court dated 19.09.2024 a report was also
called for from the concerned Presiding
Officer with regard to present status of trial
of the applicant. Accordingly, trial court
submitted its report dated 07.10.2024,
which is on record. On going through the
report dated 07.10.2024 of the trial court, I
also find that examination-in-chief of
complainant-Ashok Kumar Pandey has
been recorded on 25.08.2023. Thereafter,
on 03.10.2024 statement of PW-2 Pramod
Kumar Yadav was recorded and on
04.10.2024 statement of PW-3 has also
been recorded and the trial of the applicant
is going on.
1292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Shabeen Ahmad Vs. the State of
U.P. and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC
479 and 'X' vs. State of Rajasthan and
another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539 has
held that if offence is heinous in nature and
trial of the accused is in progress, bail
should not be granted.

12.
In
view
of
the
above,
considering the gravity of offence, which is
most heinous in nature and stage of trial of
the applicant as well as his criminal history,
I do not find any good ground to release the
applicant on bail.

13. Accordingly, the instant bail
application is rejected.

14.
However,
considering
the
detention period of the applicant since
17.07.2020, the trial court is directed to
make an endeavour to conclude the trial of
the
applicant,
expeditiously,
without
granting any unnecessary adjournment to
either of the parties.

15. Copy of this order be sent to
the concerned trial court for necessary
information and compliance.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 1292
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 3852 of 2025

Neha Singh Rathore @ Neha Kumari
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Kaustubh Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Whether the Petitioner's claim of fundamental
right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution
of India is absolute or subject to reasonable
restrictions on its exercise in the interests of the
sovereignty and integrity of India as well as
security of the State, relations with foreign
State, public order, decency, or morality.

Headnotes
Constitution of India - Article 19(1)(a)
and 19(2) - freedom of speech and
Expression - scope of Article 19(1)(a) -
not an absolute right but shall be
considered subject to the reasonable
restrictions - writ petition dismissed
Held:
The court after perusing the allegations of the
FIR and the relevant portion of the case diary,
convinced that the allegations prima facie,
disclose
cognizable
offence,
justifying
an
investigation by the police officers. [Para 21]
The law is trite on the point as stated above
that the fundamental right under Article
19(1)(a) is not an absolute right but be subject
to the reasonable restrictions in the light of
Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in re; Kedar Nath Singh
v. State of Bihar, 1962 AIR 955, has observed
that the State can impose restrictions to prevent
speech that incites violence or undermines
national unity or disrupts public order. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in re; Dr. Ram Manohar
Lohia v. State of Bihar and Others, 1966 AIR
740, has upheld restrictions on publications
containing
prejudicial
reports
that
could
endanger public safety. The Apex Court upheld
the restrictions on publications promoting hatred
and violence between communities. [Para 22]

The judgment so cited by the learned counsel
for the petitioner would not be applicable in the
present case inasmuch as in re; Imran
Pratapgadhi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
after perusing the relevant extract of the poetry
has observed in para-12 that the poem does not