Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38815 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8817 of 2024 Applicant :- Ankul Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Pravin Singh,Abhisheka Sharan Gupta,Shivam Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandra Bhanu Singh Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Sri Vivek Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Chandra Bhan Singh, learned counsel for the complainant. 2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 3.7.2024 in Case Crime No. 220 of 2024 u/s 302, 427, 452, 307, 323, 504 IPC, P.S. Deeh, District Raebareli. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as she has not committed any offence as alleged. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 11.06.2024 against four persons, including the applicant, stating that the informant's house remains vacant. House of the co-accused Ajay Kumar is adjacent to informant's house. Ajay Kumar had constructed a new wall thereby including some portion of the informant's house in his own property. Upon objecting against it, all the accused persons entered the informant's house at about 11:00 AM on 11.06.2024 and assaulted the informant and his family members due to which his brother Puneet fell unconscious. The informant, his uncle Ramphal and brother Shailendra also suffered numerous injuries. The informant's brother Puneet was referred to Trauma Centre, Lucknow and Uncle was referred to District Hospital, Raebareli. Puneet died during treatment at Lucknow on 16.06.2024. The postmortem examination report mentions two stitched wounds on the right side of the head. The cause of death has been opined to be coma due to antemortem head injury. The informant reiterated the F.I.R. version in his statement given to the Investigating Officer. Other injured persons Ramphal and Shailendra also reiterated the same version and so did another eye-witness Smt. Deepa Yadav. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the co-accused person namely, Vinit Kumar Yadav, who has been assigned the similar role, has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 1.4.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2664 of 2025. He also submits that since similar role has been assigned to the applicant and case of the applicant is in parity with the co-accused, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. He has further submitted that charge-sheet has already been filed, there is no apprehension of absconding or tampering the evidence or witnesses. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted. 6. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. 7. Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of F.I.R. and fact that the co-accused person namely, Vinit Kumar Yadav, who has been assigned the similar role, has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 1.4.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2664 of 2025, therefore, on the principle of parity the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant Ankul Kumar, involved in aforesaid 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C.may be issued and if the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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 her in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall not leave the country without permission of the Court concerned. . (Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.) Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Om Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench