Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:25688 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45613 of 2024 Applicant :- Priyanka Upadhyay Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Pathak,Anjali Singh Tomer,Inder Pal Singh Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dharmendra Kumar Rajput,G.A.,Jitendra Pal Singh Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Pathak assisted by Ms. Anjali Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 229 of 2024 under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station Hathras Kotwali, District Hathras during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he went to serve the notice to the counsel for the informant but counsel for the informant stated that he is no more the advocate for the informant and the other advocate, Shri Dharmendra Kumar Rajput, has been engaged by the informant. When the learned counsel for the applicant tried to reach out to Shri Dharmendra Kumar Rajput, he refused to accept the notice on behalf of the informant and had stated that he shall be present in the court, but, when the case is called out, he is not present in the Court. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person, Bhanu has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 16.01.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45776 of 2024. 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 21.07.2024 having no criminal history, however, two case subsequent to the F.I.R. has been instituted. 6. The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspects of parity to the co- accused have not been disputed by him. 7. 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. 8. Let the applicant- Priyanka Upadhyay 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. 9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. 10. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. 11. 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. Order Date :- 20.2.2025 Karan (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad