HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47391 of 2024 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Atul Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dushyant Singh, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Shyam Dhar Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.374 of 2024, under Sections 140(1), 142, 61(2)(a) B.N.S., Police Station Sadabad Kotwali, District Hathras, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has claimed parity with co-accused person Sanjeeda Alias Sajeeta Alias Lado who has has already been enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.46581 of 2024. The case of the applicant is at a different footing to the other co-accused persons as the victim has been recovered from co-accused person Sanjeeda Alias Sajeeta Alias Lado, as such, she is entitled for bail. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.07.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail. 5. The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. on the ground that the applicant is the main accused person as it was she who had got the said kidnapping, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhishek Kumar Singh, Atul Kumar, Gagan Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dushyant Singh, G.A., M.C. Singh Rajkumari .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Learned counsel for the informant has further stated that there is CDR which indicate that the applicant had regular parlays with the person who had kidnapped the said child. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial 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 Investigationa and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail on the ground of parity. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity. 8. Let the applicant- Rajkumari, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 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 based on the testimony of the witnesses. September 15, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 47391 of 2024 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad